VAR technology is unprofitable, reasons for execution are flawed

As society transforms, the global world within which society finds itself is affected, as society in its revolution carries it along. From hunter-gatherers to global warming activists, the world has had to adjust to the demands of man’s ever-changing nature.

Long ago when technology was first viewed as a tool to sharpen humans’ existence; business, work, agriculture, healthcare, and education – were amongst fields many believed will become beneficiaries with the advent of technology.

Sports was largely left out in the discourse – even shopping was recognized, yet sports could not stick a foot in. However, in 1881, horse racing made a case for the discipline when photo-finish was used to determine the winner of a horse race and as the first trace of technology used in sports, it was the only jumpstart sports needed.

Radio broadcasting of live sports events continued the union of sports and tech in 1920. In 1936, electric scoring was next in line, TV broadcasting followed in 1939 with baseball, while instant replay started with hockey in 1955.

Indeed, the fusion between sports and technology has been undertaking a maturity curve till the modern era. But football has been accused of being the slowest of all disciplines to react, and despite its active pool of pro-traditionalists, football has contributed to the union between sports and technology.

Football probably took its first cue in the 1980s with video analysis, as coaches and players acquired the means of accessing new perspectives of games played, and what was the result? Managers became sharper and player efficiency on the field has been greatly induced. Of all of football’s technological adaptations, VAR has definitely been the most problematic, and it could be argued it has flawed its purpose.

Table of Contents

Toggle

Video Assistant Refereeing

VAR Technology || Image credits: WIRED UK

Ahead of the summer of 2018, FIFA announced its decision to use the technology on its biggest of stages – the World Cup. It is safe to say it was not wholly accepted by stakeholders; fans and footballers alike. “VAR is bull***t” was Nordin Amrabat’s words after Morocco’s 2-2 draw with Spain.

There were more criticisms of the technology when the tournament ended, with football legend, Iker Casillas and former Barcelona forward, Luis Suarez at the frontline of Twitter campaigns against the technology. But at FIFA, the purpose of the technology had been fulfilled as FIFA’s deputy general secretary – football, Zvonimir Boban, who oversaw the implementation of VAR at the 2018 World Cup, explained.

“VAR is not changing football, it is cleansing football, and this was our overriding aim when we started the VAR project together with The IFAB. The extensive preparation, both before and during the tournament, guided by the chairman of the FIFA Referees Committee, Pierluigi Collina, and FIFA’s Director of Refereeing, Massimo Busacca, has produced outstanding results and I am proud to have been part of this team,” Boban told FIFA media.

An assessment which relays emotions more than that of satisfaction from those in charge, but four years down the line, more than a number of fans and players are still not wholly enthused by the idea, especially after questionable decision-making in the London derby between Chelsea and Tottenham, where Chelsea left-back, Marc Cucurella, had his hair pulled by Christian Romero in the build-up to Spurs’ equalizer.

And the admission of faulty decision-making from the game’s VAR referee, Mike Dean, only goes on to raise further doubts about the efficiency of the entire technology.

“I could not award a free kick as VAR, but I could recommend to Taylor that he visit the referee review area to consider a possible red card. In the few seconds, I had to study Romero pulling Cucurella’s hair, I didn’t deem it a violent act. I’ve since studied the footage, spoken to other referees, and upon reflection, I should have asked Taylor to visit his pitch-side monitor to take a look for himself,” Dean wrote in a column for The Mail.

So here’s the big question: is the idea of VAR flawed since it relies on the application of human referees – a resource FIFA looked to improve with the introduction of the technology? Benaiah Dafeamekpor, a sports journalist and producer with JoySports, does not see the argument as a starting point.

“I don’t think it’s flawed because, since the introduction of VAR, we’ve seen goals which shouldn’t have stood, canceled. So I think VAR has also helped referees see incidents they don’t usually see in the heat of the moment. In the past, goals were scored after hitting an arm or with a player offside, and referees were sometimes unable to spot them. But with the introduction of VAR, referees are able to spot these,” Benaiah concluded in his defense of the technology, applying the most repeated argument in support of VAR since its inception.

However, his position lies in direct contrast with that of Kweku Lawrence, a colleague of his at JoySports.

“The purpose of VAR was to reduce the mistakes we were having from referees and match officials, [and] looking at the last few years since its implementation, we’ve still endured the same problems. They are still existing, so I don’t think it really improved our game.”

Lawrence explained, providing a generalist proposition against VAR. But as witnessed in many game situations, there could actually be dire application issues with the technology which leaves it and arguments in its support, flawed. And it is in that same web Benaiah catches himself in.

“Mistakes are still made, and as the saying goes, ‘no one is perfect. They can’t have it 100% all the time but I still think VAR is still necessary because, since its introduction, it has helped football a lot. But it still needs improvement because it is not consistent. You will see a referee rule out a goal for offside in one game, but in another, the goal will be allowed with the same scenario. So we need clarity,” Benaiah explained.

And it is for this same reason Lawrence argues the execution of the technology reveals flaws from its inception.

“What it [VAR] has done right now is to slow down the game for us, which I feel has taken the suspense and drive football fans need in the game. We have too many stoppages at the moment, and the video assistant referees take too long a time to review decisions which will probably end up with them making another mistake a human being will make.”

The Future

FIFA has not made any public claims which suggest the football governing body is making an outright acknowledgment of the flaws VAR carries. What they have done though, is introduce new technology; the semi-automated offside technology, which will be used at yet another big FIFA tournament – the 2022 World Cup.

Do not be mistaken though – this new technology is not a replacement for VAR – it is aimed as a support tool for video match officials as well as on-field officials to support quicker and more accurate decision-making offside calls.

The new technology as explained by FIFA applies 12 dedicated tracking cameras mounted underneath the roof of the stadium to track the ball, and up to 29 data points of each individual player, 50 times per second, calculating their exact position on the pitch. The 29 collected data points include all limbs and extremities that are relevant for making offside calls.

The technology, which FIFA and UEFA used the last three years to test, already set sail this year – in this season’s UEFA Champions League, and was experienced in Chelsea’s opening day UCL defeat to Dinamo Zagreb when Aubameyang’s goal was ruled out when Ben Chilwell was caught offside by the semi-automated technology.

Even though the technology is not a replacement for VAR, there is an assurance from FIFA that VAR will be improved as “FIFA has spent the last few years further improving the VAR system”. To widen its net, FIFA through Gianni Infantino has also committed to exploring technology in attempts targeted at overseeing the game’s growth.