(Editor’s note: Taking a page from Sky News with their Brexit-Free channel, 7amkickoff is now a Xhaka, Emery, and Ozil free news page. We will eventually return to covering those characters when the drama dies down in a few weeks, but hopefully only on-field news.)
For the first 90 games of the 2019/20 Premier League season VAR (Video Assistant Referees) awarded zero penalties or red cards and overturned just 19 on-field calls by the referees. Even Mike Riley, head of PGMOL, admitted that prior to this weekend, VAR had failed to award two clear penalties. And it was widely criticized for that quiescence.
We were told that the reason why referees were not overturning marginal or bad calls was because the League and the PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Board) had set a high standard – that there must be a “clear and obvious error.”
That standard was criticized last week when Arsenal played Sheffield United. In that match the Arsenal defender, Sokratis, was clearly held by Josh Egan when the two were battling for a corner. The Premier League later said that the officials needed to see the shirt pulled into a triangle and that despite the screen caps showing that Egan had hold of Sokratis, the pull wasn’t “long enough” to warrant overturning the on-field official’s non-call.
Fast forward to this weekend’s action and the Premier League and PGMOL seem to have had a change of heart. This weekend, VAR overturned 7 decisions, awarded 3 penalties and handed out 1 red card – the most in any weekend of play so far.
One of the decisions reversed by VAR was the winning goal in the Arsenal-Palace match for a foul by Calum Chambers. This decision caused tempers to flare and would have been a much bigger discussion point had there not been other drama on the pitch that evening.
The good news here is that VAR is exposing the referees and their bad decisions. And the better news is that based on this weekend’s decisions it looks like PGMOL and the Premier League have agreed to also overturn those bad decisions. But there are still a number of things about VAR that need to be corrected.
First, the officials need to use the televisions on the side of the pitch. Former referee and current head of VAR Implementation, Neil Swarbrick explained why the League took the unusual decision of not allowing the on-field official to watch replays:
“When trialing VAR we found referees were overturning 96% of decisions when they consulted monitors, because being told to look at the screen implied they had made a mistake. By trusting the VAR to help make the decision that was removed.”
This is an unusual self-own. The head of VAR Implementation is saying that during VAR trials, officials changed their minds on calls 96% of the time when they saw the call slowed down and replayed. This gets to the second of the main problems with VAR, a complete lack of consistency.
If officials are found to be changing their minds 96% of the time they are not getting clear instructions on what constitutes a foul or infraction. No matter how you implement this system, if the officials don’t have consistency in how they determine fouls, the whole system doesn’t work.
The on-field officials need to be allowed to see the replays for themselves. Then the official back in the booth can act as a consultant. Helping to guide the on-field ref toward making more consistent calls, reminding them of the interpretations of the laws that the League has set out, and acting as a sounding board.
They may reverse a lot of calls at first but I predict that 96% overturned rate would plummet once officials are allowed to learn from their mistakes and learn to be more consistent in their calls. And according to various reports the Premier League club chairmen are going to meet with officials and top of their list is a demand to let officials use the sideline monitors. That meeting is set for 14th November.
Along with making the officials more consistent and allowing the on-field officials to overturn their own calls the Premier League and PGMOL also need to improve the in-stadium experience for the fans. Matchday fans cannot be an afterthought in all of this.
The first step that needs to be taken is for fans to be shown the decisions in the stadium. This is already allowed, however there is disagreement between the League and the Referee’s association as to whose responsibility it is to show those clips. The Football Supporter’s Association is demanding action:
“When games have been interrupted for VAR there’s been a definite lack of communication in relaying information to fans in the stands, who have often been left scratching their heads.
“As a result many supporters feel VAR is currently having a negative impact on the game, regardless of whether decisions go in favour of their team or against. VAR has to work for match-goers too.
“The FSA and fan reps are meeting with the Premier League and VAR is on the agenda – why are clubs not showing decisions on the big screen and what guidelines have been given to clubs?”
There is a fear of the response from the crowd if the decisions are shown on the big screens. And having been at matches where replays are shown this is a legitimate fear. However, the worst I’ve seen is a few minutes of sustained booing at the referee.
Fans are always going to be like that! They will boo even if they don’t see the decision. And no one could possibly suggest that fans would do anything more sinister than voicing their displeasure. Not only that but when the decision is clearly correct my experience has been that the crowds boo for a few seconds and move on.
The other problem with not playing the images on the big screen is that supporters in the stands are already able to pull up replays of the decisions on their mobile devices. So, this utter lack of transparency fuels the debate that officials have something to hide.
The power of VAR rests in its transparency. Unless the League wants to shut off all replays across all platforms (which they do to an extent, by hiring a German firm to scour twitter for any “copyrighted” materials which they then issue a takedown order) then fans will always have access to referee decisions. Only by opening this up – letting the on-field officials change their own minds, letting fans in the stadium see why the decision was changed – can we get to a point where officials are more consistent in their calls.
No one in their right mind wants officials to favor one team over another. What we want is more consistency. And the only way to get that is through more transparency.
What are your thoughts on also letting fans in stadium and TV viewers hear the conversation between the refs when using VAR? I saw the England vs All Blacks rugby game, and hearing the ref explain why the try was ruled out helped me understand clearly the decisions, the ref explains it to the captain and so he gets on with it too. It’s just so transparent. Same with cricket.
Dont you think that will help better the experience, and help us understand how English refs are interpreting events? I’d sure like to hear what the hell was said about that Sokratis goal before cancelling it.
Sure. More transparency is better.
“This decision caused tempers to flare and would have been a much bigger discussion point had there not been other drama on the pitch that evening.”
Im here to salute a deft piece of writing, in which the author keeps true to the strictures put forth in the very first paragraph 🙂
Im afraid that your long-held skepticism about VAR has been totally validated. It is now about microscoping trifling stuff, rather than about correcting howlers.
Between Bunburyist and the rest of us, we are going to be feeding you a lot of ice cream.
Look, you CAN listen to other pundits if you want but just know that they will be wrong most of the time. When you want to know the right thing to think, come here.
Although there is a difference between “not working right now” and “Never going to work so should be scrapped.” That rather applies to Unai as well come to think of it.
What I am surprised about is how had Mike Riley managed to keep his job as head of PGMOL for over a decade?
In his tenure, the number of referees pool has consistently dwindled rather than developing more refereeing talent. Consequently, there are now fewer number of referees officiating more of the top flight games in England as compared to most other European leagues – a model which was shown as problematic during the Calciopoli scandal in Italy as the same referees can screw over an unfavoured team again and again.
In his reign, the number of FIFA accredited referees have reduced with no English referee being trusted to officiate any of the FIFA matches.
England has also been the last to introduce VaR amongst the major European leagues, despite being the richest, and now they have made a hash job out of it!
Mike Riley seems to have failed on all accounts – why does he still manage to keep his job? Any thoughts?
In my opinion the reason England was late to the VAR party was because The FA could see from the World Cup that VAR was a complete mess and needed further trialing. I believe it should had been held over still further, but now that the genie is out of the bottle we have to make the best of it and make improvements ad hoc.
VAR doesn’t work. Half the goals that are scored, the celebrations are ruined because the goal is being reviewed. I find it excruciating and can only imagine if you’re in the actual stadium.
If you’re going to keep it, perhaps do something like the NFL and allow each team three calls for a VAR review. It would limit the interruptions, introduce a strategic element to decisions on when to challenge a call on the field and get back to putting pressure on the referees to get it right the first time.
When you have a safety net like eyes-in-the-sky, it’s only human nature that you would not perform as well. I think referees are making loose calls knowing that their buds will catch it. It disrupts the flow, it absolves the on-field referee of responsibility, especially if they’re refusing to jog over to the monitor and see it for themselves.
I’ve thought for a long time the solution to bad officiating is a higher standard of refereeing, more training, better pay, recruitment of ex-players, etc. Technology is not always the solution to our problems.
I heard on this week’s Arsecast Extra that the person who was the VAR official for our match had never refereed a game of professional football. If that’s true, that’s insane.
And yet it makes perfect sense for how utterly stupid that call was.
Patently untrue: Jarred Gillett is a FIFA Approved referee with 206 professional matches.
https://www.transfermarkt.us/jarred-gillett/profil/schiedsrichter/4929
I think you probably misheard them because he’s never refereed the Premier League. He came over from Australia and recently he has refereed the Championship.
He’s actually an interesting choice because I’ve heard a lot of fans ask for referees from other countries to be brought in to manage Premier League games. He’s got a lot of experience around the world as a referee so, he definitely brings a different perspective. I would say that the foul on Chambers was definitely a different kind of call from what we are used to seeing from PL refs.
Ah, that makes sense. They specified “Premier League” officiating. I still think it’s weird, even though I think it would be a strange call in any country.
I guess my response came across as in favor of the imported referee.
I’m in favor of the on-field officials reviewing plays on the monitor. End of.
Doesn’t that set up a horrible dynamic? Depending on the referee’s personality, who is going to dispute a VAR official telling you that you missed a call even if you are unsure about his credentials?
What if the referee on the field thinks, “ah yeah. I’ve met that guy up there and he’s a bellend, never reffed a Premier League game in his life, I’ll be damned if I’m listening to that twat.” Then it sets up an immediate confrontational relationship between referees that are supposed to be supporting each other. I would offer that most referees then will be loathe to dispute the overruling… hence why almost none of them are taking a look for themselves on the replay.
It doesn’t work if the guy upstairs is making calls. He should simply advise the on-field ref that his call may have issues and invite him to review for himself on the side. The ref on the field can say sure, or nope, I’ve got it. There should be just three people making calls during a game – the ref and his two linesmen. That’s it.
Sorry Tim, absolutely ridiculous choice.
The match ref will call 98% of plays according to the PL standards ( however $hit they might be) and this guy will make the most important, game changing decisions according to a different standard?
Oh I didn’t realise he was Australian. That’s interesting. It certainly wasn’t a PL style call, which I mentioned. Maybe he’s quick to please his boss Mike Riley. 2 anti Arsenal calls? Game 50’s legacy lives. I’m (half) kidding.
VAR will frustrate as they figure out the standard. I think the PL has messed up not going with the European standard. If they’re changing this in November it is a good thing.
It will still need some work, but it’s worth it. It’s one of those things that will just come to be accepted as part of football soon enough. Provided the refs and the league are open to making it work. I’m not so sure they are.
More transparency is exactly what we need.
if managers get 2or3 challenges per game they will use them for timewasting at the end of games if they are unused.
var officials have loads of angles and take an age to make a decisiion how can a manager make a challenge from one angle and make the decision instantly before play is ressumed?
we just need referees and var officials to be constant for all clubs.
the chickens, dippers and man u still seem to get the rub of the green.
it’s the same as always we need a team that us 10 points better than our rivals just to make top 4.
100% with you on the consistency thing. Baseball comes to mind with this issue. First, the MLB decides to spice things up by juicing the official baseballs. Result: the single season HR record by any team in the history of baseball is immediately broken. Middle finger to everyone who tried with a normal ball. Then, they change their mind and un-juice the ball for the playoffs. Suddenly, pitchers dominate and teams who have relied on the long ball all season like the Twins and Yankees flame out. Everyone is confused. Flip flopping on important rules within the same season is always a bad idea. Always. There is no excuse for it.
NFL and NBA were both made worse by video challenges in terms of the pace and feel of the game from a viewer point of view although things like automatic video review of touchdowns has been a good thing after some initial flaws were worked out. Technology in sports is here to stay and it’s going to have growing pains particularly in sports like football and hockey that are designed to flow. I can be understanding of that. I can’t be understanding of major changes in how that technology is used from one month to the next.
Life is filled with unfairness and injustice.
I could write a whole Master’s thesis on the reflection of societal trends in sports. Our modern society is obsessed with Justice. The examples are almost too numerous; call-out culture trying to nail people for stupid things they may have said 30 years ago, judging historical figures on the basis of current moral values and not in the context of the times they lived in, critical panning of a Dave Chappelle comedy show because he dares to make a few inappropriate jokes at the expense of marginalized groups, etc. And now Justice has infected our sports.
Sometimes, bad calls are made. It’s human – we aren’t perfect. Sometimes there is injustice on the field and a goal is disallowed that might have won the game or a player not sent off for an egregious foul. That’s OK, life will go on, and sports can help teach us that we can’t get it right all the time. Sports – athletics – is a vehicle for us to explore the highest expressions of our human abilities; speed, strength, stamina, vision, intelligence, cunning, bravery. Why are we asking technology to now interfere in that quest?
Let’s get rid of VAR and just try and find ways to make human referees better.
I can personally guarantee that any changes to the game will be unpopular with a large number of fans. Some changes are good though. Technology has a role, and it already took care of the goal/no goal conundrum. They will eventually get this system right too, but the growing pains are truly painful right now.
Squires’ work today:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2019/oct/29/david-squires-on-wheres-mesut-ozil-arsenal#comment-134910844
So damn good.
Sorry, that link above takes you to the comments section (I mean you can scroll up, but still). Here’s the link:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2019/oct/29/david-squires-on-wheres-mesut-ozil-arsenal#
Freaking brilliant
Yes, almost as good as North Bank Redemption(and there’s a piece of that in today’s comic).
Great stuff, thx for the link. Son-of1-Nil challenged me in beating his time to actually find Ozil (27 seconds – lame!). I found him in 9 seconds.
some changes are good? mmmh
that’s a matter of opinion I guess.
offside.. no .
goaline tech… yes.
more subs… unsure.
back pass to keeper. unsure.
kick off.. who cares..
var.. never wanted it.
better pitches..yes.
I would rather see more home kits unless clash of colours.
safe standing or id standing.
financial doping is something I dislike but putting the cat back in the bag is difficult.
there will be a time and it’s not far away where traditonal football fans just cannot see anything like the game they fell in love with.
7 years ago bendtner got fined by uefa £80,000 for showing a advert on the waistband on some boxer shorts . bulgaria have just been fined £65,000 and a 2 match ban 1 suspended for the racism in the game against england….
another example of whats wrong in football..
Don’t censor/tread on me!
Bad as many VAR decisions are currently, football needs it. The on and off field refs just need to implement it sensibly. Not having VAR is not an option. You can’t unsqueeze the toothpaste back into the tube.
As Ive argued before, cricket and tennis show the way. Give the captain a limited number of reviews. Frivolous use, and you lose one. Sure there’s going to be tactical reviewing, Jack, but is that a strong enough reason not to have it at all? I dont think so.
I think the better example to follow is rugby:
Control of the game is in the hands of the field referees.
VAR check is based on the QUESTION /QUERY the referee asks to see.
VAR responds ONLY to that request regardless of something else VAR may have seen earlier in a move.
Field ref can ask a broad question “was it a try” or a specific question “I want to check the last tackle by number 6. Was it high.” VAR then focuses on that tackle, spectators see the item under review and generally see the problem/ lack of problem.
In rugby the ref, the players and the spectators are treated like the adult decision-makers they are expected to be. Control stays with the field referee, VAR is put at his disposal to review what he believes he may have seen, done by VAR on his behalf.
Clearly, more training would be required to introduce this into football and a very firm grasp of the rules- one interpretation regardless of ref – would be required also. In rugby the question asked by the field ref of VAR is key. The reviews of the ref become integrated into the action taking place on the field. It embodies fairness rather that justice.
“It embodies fairness rather than justice”.
I agree with everything you said here. You can’t expect justice in refereeing, you can only expect fairness.
The main difference between rugby and football is that in the former, very specific rules have evolved around what constitutes a foul / offside etc. So the ref has that clarity of what he wants to check – e.g. the England try-saving tackle where he checked if the tackler tried to wrap and hold his man in the tackle – legal – or just hit him with the shoulder – illegal. A potentially complex problem is reduced to something simple.
But subjectivity is never removed. There was still a subjective view involved – did the tackler make an attempt to wrap? – but everyone can accept a judgement based on the evidence, even if they don’t like the judgement or disagree with it. And then the issue is over.
VAR should be being used to reduce complex decisions to simple ones. Was there an offside? Was there a foul? Did the ball go out of play? Did he handball it? It should remain under control of the referee on the pitch, all reviews and decisions should be on the stadium screens and referees should be mic’ed up: “I’m ruling out the goal for a foul – an accidental trip by Arsenal player no. 21 (Chambers) when challenging for the ball” and captains should be able to ask for a limited number of VAR checks if they think the ref totally got something wrong.
PGMOL are trying to avoid the subjective nature of the referee’s judgement when they should be embracing it. They are worried about undermining the referees’ authority, but they are the ones undermining it. Half the decisions now rely on guidance written by PGMOL which are not included anywhere in the laws of the game. E.g. Tim’s sentence above:
“The Premier League later said that the officials needed to see the shirt pulled into a triangle and that despite the screen caps showing that Egan had hold of Sokratis, the pull wasn’t “long enough” to warrant overturning the on-field official’s non-call.”
Where is it written in the laws of the game that a player can hold another player’s shirt unless it’s tight enough to make a triangle, and what is the duration of the pull allowed? Who decided any of that? It’s so stupid and patently non-transparent to go down that route of micro-management, and IMO it’s driven by the usual corporate culture of buck-passing and ass-covering rather than taking actual responsibility and exercising judgement.
The net result is not just that we get poor and inconsistent decisions, it’s that, unlike in rugby, players play around the edge of what’s legal all the time, because they know they will get away with most of it.
All true. But accepting things based on evidence? Nobody does that. Just look at democracy in usa. 🙂
“The Premier League later said that the officials needed to see the shirt pulled into a triangle ……..”
——————————
The VAR officials then needed to calculate the area of the triangle by taking half of the base times the height.
Sokratis being built like a Greek god that he is, obviously, has a thin waist so the base of his shirt’s triangle wasn’t great.
Unlike Salah’s , for example , who is much stockier and wears looser fit shirts.
I think all Arsenal players should wear shirts two sizes too big from now on to give themselves a competitive edge with any triangle area VAR review.