40. What wrong with VAR? And how to fix it…

Dissatisfaction with the use of football’s Video Assistant Referee (VAR) gives lessons into how to organise ineffectively – and how it can be fixed

“It’s a penalty to Arsenal! Penalty… wait a moment, there’s a VAR check in progress. They’re checking for offside in the move leading to the penalty… waiting for the decision… still waiting… (crowd noises in the background) the fans are getting annoyed… waiting… OK, no offside so the penalty kick can now be taken (ironic cheering from fans in the background)…”

I heard this radio commentary a couple of weeks ago. I don’t normally listen to football (soccer to some of you) on the wireless these days, I was coming out of a big band rehearsal and started the car just at this moment in the match. There is a lot of talk in the UK and elsewhere at the moment about how the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) is ruining the game. I started thinking both about how to tackle it and what it tells us about how to organise ineffectively (or not). It tells us quite a lot.

Video Assistant Referee

Video Assistant Referee is football’s way to use technology to help improve decisions on the field. The game held out longer than many others in bringing in technology; the flowing and relatively uninterrupted nature of the ‘beautiful game’ made the sport wary of introducing extra elements.  Goal-line technology (checking whether the ball had crossed the goal-line and that a goal had been scored) was introduced in 2014 without resistance, which was not surprising. ‘Did the ball cross the line’ has been one of the great talking points of the game for many years, not least the famous Geoff Hurst goal for England in the 1966 World Cup Final. Ice hockey, a much faster game, has used such technology for decades. Much more controversial have been more recent developments around video replays and reviews introduced from 2018 onwards at the top level of the game.

Behind the scenes in the VAR centre

VAR uses video technology to allow decisions to be reviewed and altered in real time. Video is relayed back to a central hub where it can be replayed and reviewed by qualified refs, and the decision relayed back to the on-field referee’s earpiece. Only the referee can ask for a review, but (and this will turn out to be key) the VAR person can recommend that a check be done. There is also provision for the referee to review video on a pitch-side monitor, though this is not used all that often. The system is supposed to be used to correct ‘clear and obvious’ errors. The laws of the game allow for only certain types of decision to be reviewed:

·         Goals and offences leading up to a goal

·         Penalty decisions and offences leading up to a penalty decision

·         Direct red card incidents only (not second yellow card/caution)

·         Mistaken identity (if the referee has penalised the wrong player)

The aim of VAR is, of course, to improve the reliability of key decisions during a game. In this it largely succeeds; early statistics showed that VAR increased the number of correct decisions from 93% to 98.9%. However, it is not infallible; incorrect decisions can still occur and goals incorrectly disallowed. There was even a case of the VAR official mistaking the decision he was being asked to make and failing to allow a goal to be given. 

An example of VAR in action. In this case the Liverpool player (in red) is offside (ahead of the defendes when the ball is played to him) and so the goal won’t count. This sort of video is not shown to the public while the VAR check is on progress. It should be.

Dissatisfaction with VAR

If the number of correct decisions is increased, that sounds like a good thing, right? Yes… but there is considerable angst about VAR among fans, players and managers. Every weekend seems to bring more controversy into the news. Some of the complaints are:

It interrupts the game

Soccer is supposed to be free-flowing and proceed without interlude (except when the referee stops play for an infringement or the ball goes out – and even then play continues as soon as possible). The clock never stops. This is in stark contrast to many other sports (American football, cricket, tennis, baseball) where the game proceeds in short bursts, allowing for a different way of watching, not to mention advert breaks. When the World Cup was hosted in the USA in 1994, the games on TV had scrolling banners announcing ‘This match is brought to you ad-free by Xerox’. Pauses for VAR reviews take out the flow, the tension, the enthrallment which makes the game so compelling to fans.

It takes too long

While checks and reviews are supposed to take seconds rather than minutes, there are many cases where 2-3 minutes elapse while a decision is scrutinised. All this time the fans are standing around wondering what is happening, because:

There is no communication from VAR during checking

 This is a deliberate decision from the authorities, who say

"We want to avoid referees feeling pressured or influenced by players, managers or fans as they are in the process of making a decision. We do not allow decision-making footage to be shown while it is under consideration."

As we will see, they seem to be alone in thinking that this is a good thing. Referees are always under pressure from fans and players anyway. No footage is shown on big screens at the game, or on TV while the decision is being made. Which brings us to what I consider the crux of the issue…

VAR seems to be running the game

The rules clearly state that only the referee can ask for a VAR check, and only for the four types of decision mentioned above. Fair enough. BUT VAR can recommend to the referee that they review a decision… and it would be a brave ref who failed to accept the recommendation. Imagine playing on and then discovering that an error had been made and failed to be corrected. The ref’s signal that a VAR check is underway is that they tap their earpiece! A bigger clue that the ref is listening to a higher authority couldn’t be given. While in principle VAR can only advise the ref, this advice is always compelling. As I said earlier, there is a protocol for the on-field ref to review decisions using a pitch-side monitor, but this seems to be getting less and less frequent. And, of course, there are still errors.

Referee signalling that a VAR check is in progress by tapping his ear. This gives the impression that VAR is telling him what to do, rather than he is seeking their assistance.

The main difficulty seems to me to be that VAR is micro-managing the game, looking over the ref’s shoulder and telling them when to stop, what to allow and when to carry on. Imagine having a manager doing that to you, continuously, wired up to your phone which pinged up ‘Ooh, you don’t want to do it like that’ every couple of minutes. No wonder it’s a disaster. But how to do it better?

Learning from what works elsewhere

One of the key tenets of Solution Focus is to find what’s working and build on it. This doesn’t just apply to the case in question – a search for wider know-how can be revealing, encouraging and empowering. So what can we learn from other sports’ application of technology?

Tennis

The Hawkeye system has revolutionised tennis umpiring over the past decade. Ball-tracking technology can tell whether a ball landed in or out. The result is accepted without question by both players, so much so that human line judges have been removed from the court (saving NINE people per match at least in top tournaments!).  In tournaments where there are still human line judges, the players have a limited number of challenges which they can employ, meaning that there aren’t many pauses, and if the call is changed then they don’t lose a challenge.

Rugby Union

 Top-level rugby union matches have a television match official (TMO) supporting the on-field referee and assistants. The TMO has access to all video footage (like VAR) and can be called on by the referee to help assess decisions after they’ve been taken on the field. The TMO can also alert the referee to something they may have missed. (Note that for this to happen the TMO has to have seen something significant, not simply want to check.) The referee signals that they are consulting the TMO by drawing a big screen shape with their hands, letting everyone know what’s going on.  The ref and TMO are wired for sound, their conversation and the video footage can be seen and heard in the stadium and on television. It’s all very open and transparent.

Cricket

Cricket also employs a video official, the ‘third umpire’. Cricket is slightly unusual in that technology is used to review where the ball was going (a prediction) as well as where it went. The Decision Review System (DRS) can be used by the umpires or by players to review a decision, often about whether a batter should be given out or not. These are frequently to do with being out Leg Before Wicket (LBW) where if the ball strikes the batter’s (padded) leg when it would have gone on to hit the stumps it’s out. If the ball was missing the stumps, it’s not out. (There are other kinds of review but this is the most common and contentious.) The players have a limited number of reviews, and as in tennis this makes the choice to use a review or not part of the game strategy. With LBW the umpire always makes their call on-field which can be challenged by players. However, because it’s a prediction of where the ball would have gone there is a third finding possible; out, not out or umpire’s call. In the latter case it’s close that there is no clear answer, and so the umpire’s original decision stands. This maintains the key role of the umpire as final decision maker on the field. Phew.

An example of DRS in cricket using ball-tracking technology. The ball has both pitched in line with the stumps and hit the batter’s pad (not their bat) in line with the stumps (both required for the batter to be out). However, the ball is close to going over the stumps and so ‘umpire’s call’ is given. In this caase the umpire’s decision was out, so that call stands.

Interestingly, Cricket Australia trialled a system about a decade ago where the third umpire could review any decision without reference from the on-field umpires or players. It was dropped rapidly, described as “shocking and embarrassing” by those involved.

How to improve VAR in football for referees, players and fans

Based on everything above, here are my thoughts on how to adjust the VAR system to address dissatisfaction and build support for its use in future.

1. Make clear that VAR is there to support the on-field participants, not catch them out

At the moment VAR can effectively intervene when they wish. Make a VAR call dependent on an on-field request from the referee, who should make a big sign (as in rugby) about what’s happening.

2. Allow other on-field participants to ask for a review

This is another way of maintaining VAR as part of the game, not an overlord. Give the captain and/or coach a number of challenges. VAR is there to correct ‘clear and obvious’ errors, and so we might suppose that such errors are visible on the ground. If NOBODY in the stadium has seen it, it’s can’t be clear and obvious.

3. Mike up the referee and the VAR so we can all hear the conversation.

This works in other sports like rugby and cricket. It would allow the ref to maintain authority and the fans to be engaged rather than waiting around. Similarly, show the footage on big screens and TV while the review is in progress, as opposed to afterwards when we all want to get on with the game.   

4. Have a margin for sticking with referee’s original decision.

One difficulty with VAR is that there is no margin for error; either it’s offside or not. This takes away from the on-field referee’s judgement. As in cricket, I propose a margin (say a foot?) where close offside calls stay with the ref’s decision.

VAR is seen as acting like god, all-seeing and omnipotent. While the rules have some safeguards against that (insisting that the referee is the only person who can call for a review), these rules don’t seem to work in practice. VAR should be a useful assistant to the ref, not usurping their role.

Conclusion

Micro-management from above is usually a bad thing in organisations. Making sure people have the skills to succeed and leaving them to get on with it (with appropriate support) is a far better option. It’s also bad in football. Putting the referee in charge of VAR, rather than VAR pulling the ref’s strings, is the way to go.

Every week on Steps To A Humanity Of Organisation we explore ways to organise (run your organisation, business, team, charity, whatever) in ways that are both humane AND effective. Please share this post and subscribe free. Thank you!

Thanks to Paul Z Jackson for his useful reflections which helped with this piece.

---

Dates and mates

Jenny and I were delighted to be invited to the launch of Kirsty Maynor’s new book Untangled: A practical and inspirational guide to change we choose and change we don’t in Leith last week. We met Kirsty at the Transformational Leadership Council meeting in Belfast earlier in the year, when some old friends of our came across the Atlantic for one of their twice-yearly gatherings. She did a great piece of facilitation, and we were excited to discover that unlike everyone else in the room she also lived in Edinburgh.

The book is indeed practical and inspirational; Kirsty shares her own story in grappling with the changes that life throws at us as well as offering ways to rethink, adapt and act in what can be very challenging circumstances. There’s also a journal to act as a workbook and guide as the reader goes along. I recommend it warmly, particularly for those working through challenging personal situations and wanting to get on with their lives rather than being held back.

Mark, Kirsty Maynor and Jenny at the launch of Kirsty’s book Untangled last week.

Next week I have a special festive treat - my latest published fiction short story! ‘Ben’ Nevis is back, this time not on the side of a Yorkshire mountain but in the very heart of London. It’s in the latest issue of Unpsychology, available as a free PDF download (if you can’t wait) or in print. More next time.

After that, Steps To A Humanity Of Organisation will be taking a two week holiday break. We’ll be back on Wednesday 10 January 2024.