VAR From Perfect

Who said that this World Cup was going to be about the football? The game as we know it has changed with the introduction of video technology. And while on the whole, it seems to be for the better, football will never be the same.

VAR has unceremoniously barged in at this World Cup to take a front seat in every conceivable circumstance. Pretty much fast-tracked to be approved to be used at this summer’s tournament, sceptics such as myself have been treated to an imperfect blend of situations: from the “I told you so”, to the “they’ve done a good job there, actually”.

The thing with VAR is that it deals with non-certainties. Goal-line technology has been seamlessly introduced across parts of the game and there can be no arguments over any decision. VAR is like goal-line tech’s long-lost cousin with the funny accent. They strive to achieve the same things but go about it in an entirely different way – VAR will decide things that are still open to debate – that’s the nature of the beast.

The argument that it is depriving football of its soul has gone cold. Ideally, you want every decision made to be the right one. We have never relied on refereeing mistakes to provide drama and talking points. The soap opera of football has never hinged on the constant guesswork of officials.

But if VAR doesn’t get everything right – and it simply cannot do – is there much point to it? Should we not leave the 50-50 decisions to the refs on the field? “Clear and obvious error” has already become one of the most irritating soundbites of the World Cup, and while their job in the VAR Room is to routinely review every major incident, it seems the onus is still on making the right decision regardless of time, how contentious an incident or, God forbid, how it might ruin the spectacle.

VAR – or “vaaaaar” as Gary Lineker keeps calling it (stop it, Gary) – has become part of the spectacle. It’s not perfect, but it’s impossible for it to be perfect when you’re judging on the basis of interpretation. All the technology does is provide an extra chance to make a more well-informed decision.

And as I had suspected, they still get it wrong. The decision to gift Australia a penalty against Denmark was a travesty. Meanwhile, Harry Kane and Aleksandar Mitrovic have both been victims to, shall we say, some over-zealous man-marking – although an honourable mention must go out to new Gooner Stephan Lichtsteiner, for still managing to head the ball away as part of a three-man cuddle.

One thing you have to hand to the technology is that it is, more often than not, making the right decision. Calls like Yussuf Poulsen’s handball may have to be accepted to be sacrificed for the overall good of the game – as bad as the decision was – whether we like it or not, this technology is here to stay – and this will become the new norm.

But good calls are outweighing the bad ones at the moment. When it seemed Neymar had gone over too easily in the box on Friday afternoon, it was because he had done just that. We’d be saying how Costa Rica would still be in the competition had he not scored a penalty late in the game. But thankfully justice was done, and he got his goal in the end. Hmm.

Sweden’s penalty against South Korea was nailed-on. Iran’s would-be equaliser was rightly called offside (without which we would not have seen some special last-minute acrobatics on the touchline). Iceland’s penalty against Nigeria was as clear as they come.

There has been a fair share of situations that remain debatable. With these, we have to accept that, just as the referee would have guessed in live play, officials are now essentially taking time to guess. The method of decision-making in football has now changed and we have to get used to it. This is not VAR ruining the game – it is merely changing it slightly. This is football evolving before our very eyes.

Was Steven Zuber’s goal against Brazil preceded by a push? Maybe. How much contact on the ball constitutes a clean tackle, with Josh Risdon’s tackle on Antoine Griezmann in mind? Nobody knows. Should Croatia’s Ante Rebic have seen red before he kickstarted Argentina’s meltdown? Well, yes. But these are all things that are part and parcel of the game and there’s nothing to gain in moaning about it more just because the technology is there.

Something VAR is changing is the attitude of the players. We are seeing players almost playing for reviews to take place, half-expecting decisions to go their way – instead of getting on with the game and abiding by the old adage of playing to the whistle.

The main difficulty of VAR always has been the implementation. FIFA seem to make it harder than it looks, and a process that seems to be simple enough to explain has been bereft of any clarification whatsoever.

Supporters, especially at home, are kept in the dark over events in the VAR Room, although commentary teams are regularly letting us know when checks are being made. Surely that is a case of replicating that same information onto our screens? All you need is a sign to say there is a review taking place, and what is being checked out in particular. That will do.

Given teething problems would be expected with such a change in how we govern the game, you have to say it has been carried out far better than it has been in the trials it has had in English football – so much so that the Premier League may regret rejecting proposals to introduce it in the coming season.

To think that the processes can be improved suggests that there is a viable future for VAR in the modern game, and it will surely come to be that we will wonder how we ever coped without it, and if only we’d had it sooner…

I’m off to cry about that Ryan Babel dive. It still haunts me to this day.

Up the VAR!