Hey Mark, I am an A-level student studying at college, and I have decided to do an EPQ, which is a 5000-word essay. I have decided to do my essay on VAR. I have read you're article, and I would like to reference some of the things you wrote about. Would this be okay with you?
Hi Joel, thanks for getting in touch. Yes, I’d be delighted for you to reference the article. Please cite it correctly in whatever format your college uses (APA etc) and also put the link in the article. Thanks.
Oh such a topic so close to my heart!! Back in 2018 when VAR was being trialled in Major League Soccer I wrote about it here: https://aftn.ca/why-var-will-never-get-it-right/. I was alarmed by the idea that what was driving VAR was a pitch that it would finally bring certainty to the judgment decisions that referees are forced to make. This feeds into a cultural hunger for certainty and a delusion that, even in complex systems,if we just use the right tools some form of objective reality is finally attainable. The unquestioned assumptions about what is possible have created a bunch of pain and have really ruined the flow of top level football. Rugby has got it right I think, and oth cricket and tennis do in fact use technology for certainty in situations where the the outcome can be knowable. I was surprised by the fact that offside was so complicated to judge, and I think that AI may actually provide us with reliable ruling on the application of the law if we can all agree on what offside actually is. If the law was amended slightly to be judged by the boot of an attacker or defender (as opposed to any playable body part) it might be easy to even embed boots with chips to make this an automatic ruling. Like goal line technology, the referee could be alerted by a wrist watch alarm. But keeping VAR for offside under the current conditions doesn't make sense becasue you are just deferring the judgement call to another team of referees who have to make a judgement call at a different scale. So we might as well leave the calls with the AR and the referees now, and go back to complaining about how THEY got it wrong. At least it would improve the flow of the game again!
Hi C hris, yes I think you're right about VAR trying to bring certainty where there can be none. In cricket the 'umpire's call' is one way around this, backing the on-field decision where it's close. In rugby they have to see conclusiive evidence to overturn a decision. I see neither of these in VAR at the moment, and it's with worse for it. Going with the boot/foot for offside would be one way to reduce the confusion.
To: The Premier League and the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL)
Subject: Formal Notice of Intent to Initiate Legal Proceedings Concerning the Misapplication of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) System
Date: April 10, 2025
Introduction:
We, the undersigned consortium of Premier League supporters and stakeholders (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimants"), hereby serve formal notice of our intent to initiate legal proceedings against the Premier League and the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Respondents"). This action pertains to the persistent and systemic misapplication of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system, specifically regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the "clear and obvious error" standard, which has materially compromised the integrity of the game and adversely affected the enjoyment of fans.
Factual Background:
Implementation and Purpose of VAR:
The VAR system was introduced into the Premier League with the stated objective of assisting on-field referees in rectifying "clear and obvious errors" and addressing "serious missed incidents" in relation to goals, penalty decisions, direct red card incidents, and cases of mistaken identity. This implementation aimed to enhance the accuracy and fairness of match officiating.
Misapplication of the "Clear and Obvious Error" Standard:
The subjective interpretation of what constitutes a "clear and obvious error" has led to inconsistent and controversial decisions. For instance, during a recent match between Everton and Nottingham Forest, VAR failed to recommend a penalty review for a challenge involving Ashley Young and Callum Hudson-Odoi, which PGMOL later acknowledged as an error.
Negative Impact on Fan Experience:
The protracted duration of VAR reviews has disrupted the natural flow of matches, leading to significant frustration among supporters. Notably, a Tottenham Hotspur goal was disallowed after a six-minute VAR review, prompting widespread criticism from fans who argued that such delays undermine the immediacy and excitement inherent in football.
Erosion of Trust and Calls for Abolition:
The cumulative effect of inconsistent VAR decisions has eroded trust in match officiating. Prominent figures within the football community have advocated for the removal of VAR, citing its detrimental impact on the relationship between fans and the sport. For example, Tottenham Hotspur manager Ange Postecoglou has expressed frustration with VAR's impact on the game, claiming to be a “lone voice” against its influence.
Technical Limitations and Subjectivity:
The application of VAR has revealed technical limitations that exacerbate its controversial nature. For instance, the standard frame rate of broadcast cameras (typically 25 frames per second) introduces a margin of error when determining the exact moment a ball is played, which is crucial for offside decisions. This temporal discrepancy can result in erroneous judgments, undermining the credibility of officiating.
International Precedents Reflecting VAR's Detrimental Impact:
The negative ramifications of VAR are not confined to the Premier League but are evident in other competitions. For instance, during the 2018 FIFA World Cup, the implementation of VAR led to several controversial decisions, highlighting issues of inconsistency and subjectivity. Independent assessments noted that while most decisions were made correctly as a result of VAR, some were wrong despite VAR review, and some decisions which were called incorrectly were not even reviewed.
Wikipedia
+1
Wikipedia
+1
Legal Grounds:
The Respondents' misapplication of the VAR system constitutes a breach of their duty to maintain the integrity and enjoyment of the game, as well as a violation of consumer protection principles. The inconsistent and subjective application of the "clear and obvious error" standard has led to decisions that are arbitrary and capricious, thereby undermining the contractual and statutory rights of the Claimants as consumers and stakeholders.
Relief Sought:
The Claimants seek the following remedies:
Immediate Suspension of VAR:
An injunction mandating the immediate cessation of VAR usage in Premier League matches pending a comprehensive and transparent review of its implementation and impact.
Establishment of an Independent Review Panel:
The formation of an independent panel, inclusive of fan representatives, to assess the efficacy and application of VAR, with a particular focus on the interpretation of the "clear and obvious error" standard.
Implementation of Transparent Decision-Making Processes:
The development and enforcement of clear, consistent, and transparent protocols for VAR decision-making, ensuring alignment with the principles of fairness and the spirit of the game.
Compensation for Affected Parties:
An order for the Respondents to provide appropriate compensation to fans and stakeholders adversely affected by the misapplication of VAR, acknowledging the diminution of match-day enjoyment and related losses.
Conclusion:
The Claimants contend that the Respondents' persistent misapplication of the VAR system has materially compromised the integrity of Premier League football and has adversely impacted the enjoyment and trust of fans. We urge the Respondents to acknowledge these deficiencies and to engage constructively in addressing the issues raised. Absent satisfactory remedial action, the Claimants will proceed with legal proceedings to seek the relief outlined above.
Hey Mark, I am an A-level student studying at college, and I have decided to do an EPQ, which is a 5000-word essay. I have decided to do my essay on VAR. I have read you're article, and I would like to reference some of the things you wrote about. Would this be okay with you?
Hi Joel, thanks for getting in touch. Yes, I’d be delighted for you to reference the article. Please cite it correctly in whatever format your college uses (APA etc) and also put the link in the article. Thanks.
Oh such a topic so close to my heart!! Back in 2018 when VAR was being trialled in Major League Soccer I wrote about it here: https://aftn.ca/why-var-will-never-get-it-right/. I was alarmed by the idea that what was driving VAR was a pitch that it would finally bring certainty to the judgment decisions that referees are forced to make. This feeds into a cultural hunger for certainty and a delusion that, even in complex systems,if we just use the right tools some form of objective reality is finally attainable. The unquestioned assumptions about what is possible have created a bunch of pain and have really ruined the flow of top level football. Rugby has got it right I think, and oth cricket and tennis do in fact use technology for certainty in situations where the the outcome can be knowable. I was surprised by the fact that offside was so complicated to judge, and I think that AI may actually provide us with reliable ruling on the application of the law if we can all agree on what offside actually is. If the law was amended slightly to be judged by the boot of an attacker or defender (as opposed to any playable body part) it might be easy to even embed boots with chips to make this an automatic ruling. Like goal line technology, the referee could be alerted by a wrist watch alarm. But keeping VAR for offside under the current conditions doesn't make sense becasue you are just deferring the judgement call to another team of referees who have to make a judgement call at a different scale. So we might as well leave the calls with the AR and the referees now, and go back to complaining about how THEY got it wrong. At least it would improve the flow of the game again!
Hi C hris, yes I think you're right about VAR trying to bring certainty where there can be none. In cricket the 'umpire's call' is one way around this, backing the on-field decision where it's close. In rugby they have to see conclusiive evidence to overturn a decision. I see neither of these in VAR at the moment, and it's with worse for it. Going with the boot/foot for offside would be one way to reduce the confusion.
To: The Premier League and the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL)
Subject: Formal Notice of Intent to Initiate Legal Proceedings Concerning the Misapplication of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) System
Date: April 10, 2025
Introduction:
We, the undersigned consortium of Premier League supporters and stakeholders (hereinafter referred to as "the Claimants"), hereby serve formal notice of our intent to initiate legal proceedings against the Premier League and the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Respondents"). This action pertains to the persistent and systemic misapplication of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system, specifically regarding the interpretation and enforcement of the "clear and obvious error" standard, which has materially compromised the integrity of the game and adversely affected the enjoyment of fans.
Factual Background:
Implementation and Purpose of VAR:
The VAR system was introduced into the Premier League with the stated objective of assisting on-field referees in rectifying "clear and obvious errors" and addressing "serious missed incidents" in relation to goals, penalty decisions, direct red card incidents, and cases of mistaken identity. This implementation aimed to enhance the accuracy and fairness of match officiating.
Misapplication of the "Clear and Obvious Error" Standard:
The subjective interpretation of what constitutes a "clear and obvious error" has led to inconsistent and controversial decisions. For instance, during a recent match between Everton and Nottingham Forest, VAR failed to recommend a penalty review for a challenge involving Ashley Young and Callum Hudson-Odoi, which PGMOL later acknowledged as an error.
Negative Impact on Fan Experience:
The protracted duration of VAR reviews has disrupted the natural flow of matches, leading to significant frustration among supporters. Notably, a Tottenham Hotspur goal was disallowed after a six-minute VAR review, prompting widespread criticism from fans who argued that such delays undermine the immediacy and excitement inherent in football.
Erosion of Trust and Calls for Abolition:
The cumulative effect of inconsistent VAR decisions has eroded trust in match officiating. Prominent figures within the football community have advocated for the removal of VAR, citing its detrimental impact on the relationship between fans and the sport. For example, Tottenham Hotspur manager Ange Postecoglou has expressed frustration with VAR's impact on the game, claiming to be a “lone voice” against its influence.
Technical Limitations and Subjectivity:
The application of VAR has revealed technical limitations that exacerbate its controversial nature. For instance, the standard frame rate of broadcast cameras (typically 25 frames per second) introduces a margin of error when determining the exact moment a ball is played, which is crucial for offside decisions. This temporal discrepancy can result in erroneous judgments, undermining the credibility of officiating.
International Precedents Reflecting VAR's Detrimental Impact:
The negative ramifications of VAR are not confined to the Premier League but are evident in other competitions. For instance, during the 2018 FIFA World Cup, the implementation of VAR led to several controversial decisions, highlighting issues of inconsistency and subjectivity. Independent assessments noted that while most decisions were made correctly as a result of VAR, some were wrong despite VAR review, and some decisions which were called incorrectly were not even reviewed.
Wikipedia
+1
Wikipedia
+1
Legal Grounds:
The Respondents' misapplication of the VAR system constitutes a breach of their duty to maintain the integrity and enjoyment of the game, as well as a violation of consumer protection principles. The inconsistent and subjective application of the "clear and obvious error" standard has led to decisions that are arbitrary and capricious, thereby undermining the contractual and statutory rights of the Claimants as consumers and stakeholders.
Relief Sought:
The Claimants seek the following remedies:
Immediate Suspension of VAR:
An injunction mandating the immediate cessation of VAR usage in Premier League matches pending a comprehensive and transparent review of its implementation and impact.
Establishment of an Independent Review Panel:
The formation of an independent panel, inclusive of fan representatives, to assess the efficacy and application of VAR, with a particular focus on the interpretation of the "clear and obvious error" standard.
Implementation of Transparent Decision-Making Processes:
The development and enforcement of clear, consistent, and transparent protocols for VAR decision-making, ensuring alignment with the principles of fairness and the spirit of the game.
Compensation for Affected Parties:
An order for the Respondents to provide appropriate compensation to fans and stakeholders adversely affected by the misapplication of VAR, acknowledging the diminution of match-day enjoyment and related losses.
Conclusion:
The Claimants contend that the Respondents' persistent misapplication of the VAR system has materially compromised the integrity of Premier League football and has adversely impacted the enjoyment and trust of fans. We urge the Respondents to acknowledge these deficiencies and to engage constructively in addressing the issues raised. Absent satisfactory remedial action, the Claimants will proceed with legal proceedings to seek the relief outlined above.