JANUARY 30 ― The use of technology to support football referees in their decision-making process has been a hot topic for a long time.
And it has never been the subject of more discussion than right now, following a controversial demonstration of the VAR ― video assistant referee ― system during Liverpool’s highly eventful 3-2 FA Cup exit against West Brom on Friday night.
As many of you will already know, the game at Anfield was dominated by VAR, which stepped into the limelight to make major decisions in the game on three occasions in the first half.
Firstly, West Brom were denied a goal which would have sent them 3-1 ahead when referee Craig Pawson ― prompted by his colleague Andre Marriner, who was watching the game from a TV studio on the outskirts of London ― ruled that Gareth Barry had been standing in an offside position and interfering with play.
A few minutes later, Liverpool benefited from another decision when they were awarded a penalty after video ref Marriner alerted on-pitch official Pawson to a foul inside the box, resulting in a spot-kick after a lengthy delay.
And finally, West Brom’s third goal of the night was reviewed for offside, but this time allowed to stand after it was decided by Marriner and Pawson that Jay Rodriguez had not touched the ball or interfered with play during the scoring of the goal.
Naturally, this new development has prompted plenty of debate, but as far as I’m concerned only one point really matters: in all three cases, the correct decisions were made thanks to video technology.
This is pretty important, don’t you think? After all, the only reason we have match officials in the first place is so they can accurately apply the laws of the game and ensure the action is played out in the manner intended by the rule book.
Naturally, three match officials on the pitch can’t always see everything, especially considering the relentless pace of the modern game at the highest level, and there is also an occasional inevitable occurrence of human error.
Therefore, sometimes the decisions made by on-pitch officials will be incorrect. And if we can minimise those errors by using technology ― as we now can ― to give the referees the best possible chance of getting as many decisions as possible right, surely we should do it? Shouldn’t we? For me, it’s a no-brainer. Of course we should.
The question is not whether we should employ video technology, but how. And in this case, I fully agree, there is currently room for improvement because some of the decisions are taking too long to review.
But these are small details which can be improved, and the current period of experimentation will be worth it to find a system which provides more correct decisions. And although it’s inevitable that some reviews will provide minor delays no matter how well the process works, football is already a sport littered with delays ― in a typical match the ball is only in play for around 55 minutes, so VAR reviews will simply join throw-ins, injuries, free-kicks, goal-kicks, penalties, yellow and red cards, substitutions and kick-offs as one more break in play.
One of the most common arguments I’ve seen against the implementation of VAR is that it is unfair to paying fans inside the stadium, who don’t have the benefit of seeing the same footage as armchair spectators sitting at home watching on television.
In the absence of big screens relaying “live” pictures of the review process ― which currently aren’t shown ― that is certainly true. But my reaction to that complaint, I’m afraid, is simple: so what?
Watching a game on television and watching a game “live” in the stadium always have been very different experiences and always will be, with TV viewers granted a range of benefits that their in-stadia brethren cannot access.
When you’re watching a game at home on TV, for example, you don’t get cold and wet. You can get up and make yourself a drink or grab a snack whenever you want, without having to queue or pay a fortune at the refreshment stalls.
You can go to the toilet without getting your feet covered in urine and having nowhere to wash your hands. You can see the action close-up, with key incidents replayed dozens of times from several different angles. If you’re struggling to interpret the action, you’ve got the TV commentary team to help you along.
And when it’s all over, you can flick off the TV and immediately carry on with the next thing in your life, rather than slowly filing out of the stadium and spending the next two hours sitting in traffic.
And now, to add to the long list of things that TV viewers can do but in-stadia supporters cannot, if you’re sitting at home watching the action on a screen, you can see officiating decisions being reviewed.
But none of that, in the eyes of the millions of people who devote so much time, money and emotion into attending football matches in the flesh, can compensate for the actual experience of being there. Having the action right there in front of your eyes, with all the sights, sounds and ― yes ― smells that accompany the memorable living experience of going to the game.
That won’t change with VAR. But we will get better decisions. So stick with it ― it’ll be worth it.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
