The replay system that killed fun
VAR was brought in to catch obvious errors. It may have done that, but it also litigates even the tightest of judgement calls, and has meant that joy can't be trusted
The 20 clubs in England’s Premier League will vote on Thursday on a proposal to scrap VAR, the system of replay review that was introduced in 2018 and has been widely disliked since about that exact time.
The proposal is not expected to pass. But one can dream.
Anyone who has spent much time watching the EPL in recent years knows the obvious, glaring problems with the VAR — video assistant review — system. One of them is technical: it is frequently used for offside checks, during which the VAR officials put lines over frozen images to try to determine if a player was in an offside position at the moment the ball was struck. But much of that is fuzzy. Literally so, because the freeze frames of video inevitably show highly pixelated images, but also figuratively so because the VAR is guessing at the moment at which a ball leaves a foot, and guessing where the leading edge of Player A’s body is relative to Player B. Sometimes the calls are obvious and correct, but sometimes the judgement of the on-field officials over a close call is replaced by the judgement of an official in a booth who is also operating with imperfect information. Why is the latter any better than the former, other than that it took much longer?
Those kinds of scenarios might be cleaned up next season by the introduction of “semi-automated offside” reviews, where in-stadium cameras are quickly used to determine such infractions, in the same way that goal-line technology can tell if a ball has crossed the line, down to millimetres of precision. So, hooray for that.
But that won’t solve the other problem with VAR, which is that it promises objective accuracy but really just replaces subjective decisions with another set of subjective decisions. ( I have, admittedly, been complaining about this for a while.) A player leaps to clear a corner kick in the box, and the ball glances off an outstretched arm. The referee decides nothing untoward has happened, and play continues. But then the VAR, having had the chance to look at multiple slow-motion angles, decides not just that the ball has hit an arm, but that the arm was in an improper position. An “unnatural” position, in the lingo. Of course, deciding what is unnatural is a ridiculous proposition. Leaping in the air often requires people to use their arms for leverage and balance; no one pops straight up with their hands at their sides. In this scenario, what looks fine in the moment might look somewhat more questionable when slowed down and examined in isolation. But surely these are not the instances that VAR was introduced to prevent. And that’s its biggest flaw: that it has created a layer of overly fussy pedants who examine every replay in hopes of catching something that might have been missed in the real-time action on the pitch.
Actually, that’s its second biggest flaw. Its worst effect is that, even with the limitations already noted, it has introduced a system in which spontaneity has been lost. The excitement and thrills of a stunning late goal cannot be trusted, because the guy in the booth may yet find that a shoulder or a toe was just slightly out of position. Or there was a foul in the buildup or a player blocking the goalkeeper’s line of sight. Even now, six years after its introduction, television announcers will still shout that no offside flags have been raised in the seconds after a big goal, as though this is proof that euphoria is appropriate. The wise, jaded fan will be sitting there, arms crossed, not willing to believe it was a good goal until the VAR has passed judgement.
A system that maybe catches a few extra mistakes hardly seems worth it, when the other thing it does is effectively stifle joy. Isn’t that the point of watching sports?
Over at The Line, I ranted a little about traffic, and possible solutions to same. Thanks to Matt and Jen for letting me vent.
I agree that much of the tech remains subjective as well. But I would contend that more info helps. And yes, smart to make it as transparent as possible.
Hmm. What do you think of refs using video in hockey? Or of the long, detailed, and totally transparent discussions that rugby refs routinely have to sort out, enforce, and effectively communicate the rules of an intense contact sport?
This isn't binary; surely it's just about getting better info? And the tech is getting better all the time.