1) Speed the thing up
This is both the trickiest fix to effect and the most vital. On Wednesday night the Wembley crowd could have succumbed to hypothermia in the time it took Paul Tierney to resolve decisions. As Mauricio Pochettino pointed out, having to wait two minutes to know whether you can celebrate a goal is a bit of a buzzkill. VAR is supposed to check all “reviewable” decisions (goals, penalties, red cards, mistaken identity). Goals are particularly problematic because the game stops and cannot restart until a decision is confirmed. Quite simply, these confirmations need to be quicker. Greater experience may help but there is a feeling that some video assistant referees also need a sit down and a reminder of the rules.
2) Apply the bloody rules
Football is a simple game (regulations regarding feinting during a penalty run-up excepted). The rules of VAR are designed to match. “Mimimum interference – maximum benefit” is the motto. Any interjection by the video assistant is supposed to happen only in the case of a decision missed or a “clear” error having been made. At the Spurs-Rochdale match, Érik Lamela’s opening goal was ruled out by VAR. Yet no number of replay viewings reveals a clear and obvious error. A possible infringement? Yes. But not a clear error. There is perhaps a lesson here. If you cannot see an error at the first time of reviewing it, then it is not a clear error.
3) Tell people what is going on
We still do not know precisely which error caused the Lamela goal to be ruled out. This is because referees (never mind their video assistants) do not speak to the media after matches. It is also because there is an absence of communication from officials to fans in the ground. As it stands, nobody knows why VAR intercedes and on what grounds it is doing so. Half the time it is difficult to tell when VAR is being used at all. Again it is not as if there are no solutions to this: referees could wear microphones and relay information through the tannoy; screens inside the stadium could also pass on information. It does not even need to be a full explanation of the process. At this stage, any information at all would be nice.
4) Empower the referee
VAR is a two-way thing. If referees are worried about a decision they can ask the video assistant to check. If the assistant spots something the referee should be aware of, he or she can let them know. The dialogue is supposed to aid a referee, who will always have the final say. But at Wembley it did not feel as if Tierney was being empowered. There were several agonising periods during the game in which he was forced to stand still – finger in ear – as he waited for instructions that would allow him to carry on with his job. When the credibility of the referee is constantly being questioned such an experience is hardly reaffirming. Again, protecting the referee is a cornerstone of VAR in principle, but it needs to be worked out in practice.
5) Do not panic
Given that a single refereeing decision can spark a 24-hour media storm (traditional and social, by the way), a malfunctioning refereeing system is naturally proving catnip. The talk has now moved on from whether VAR would prove to be an omniscient panacea to whether it should be ditched for ever. The truth is that we remain in a trial period and, as of Wednesday, only half a dozen matches have taken part in it. At this stage some of the issues are glaring but technically solvable. Other issues to do with the culture of football (ie fans do not like breaks) may be more intractable but, again, are recognised in VAR’s own principles. The Premier League meets to vote on the technology next month. The clubs could approve or deny it but they could also seek to trial it further.
The Guardian Sport
