The many problems prove video is VAR from perfect

LONDON: Perhaps football's adoption of Video Assistant Referees seemed so sensible because we are all VARs every time we watch a televised game. We expect our commentators to be VARs. We stare at our screens mid and post-match awaiting further replays and the analyses of pundit VARs.
    Sometimes, this legion of informal assistants agrees. Occasionally, all these DIY VARs come to the same conclusion at pace, after just a couple of replays.
    When you consider how infrequently viewers, commentators and pundits reach consensus when granted the dual luxury of multiple camera angles and unlimited time to pick the bones from them, is it any surprise The International Football Association Board's two-year VAR experiment is beset with controversy?
    The body “hopes to make a decision about VARs” at its Zurich AGM on Saturday. The experiment has as much to do with FIFA politics as the groundswell of opinion that pushed for VAR. Sepp Blatter, a FIFA president who oversaw a series of rule changes that improved the spectacle, protected skilful proponents and increased the popularity of his sport, long stood against efforts to 're-referee' games.
    When Blatter's presidency ended the populist move for successor Gianni Infantino was to allow VAR into the game. Technological assistance was modern, rational and, most importantly, the antithesis of Blatter's position. Following trial use by over 20 national associations, it seems reasonable to argue that an audience broadly in favour of the idea of video assistance pre-introduction is less enamoured with the concept having observed attempts to put it into practise.
    The system was first to used to change a FIFA match referee's decision in the 2016 Club World Cup; an incident worth seeking out and watching online. A Kashima Antlers midfielder is tripped in the penalty area. Daigo Nishi is in an offside position, but, because he hasn't played the ball when he is fouled the VAR informs Viktor Kassai that he should have awarded a penalty. Kassai views footage on a pitch-side monitor and penalises Atletico Nacional. It is, in short, a mess. A precursor of problems to come.
    IFAB recently released “provisional research results” from an academic study of VAR matches. It found that VAR increased accuracy across four match-changing decisions (goal, penalty, direct red card, mistaken identity) by 5.9 percent. VAR was said to have a “decisive impact” in 8 percent of matches, with the average review taking 60 seconds.
    Another line stands out: “100 per cent accuracy impossible due to human perception and subjectivity in decision-making.”
    So we know VAR doesn't guarantee correct decisions (and doesn't increase the number of correct decisions by a great margin). We know VAR doesn't remove controversy over refereeing (Willian's yellow card for “simulation” and Hawk Eye's forced apology for providing sub-ZX Spectrum standard offside lines are just two examples).
    We know officials struggle to implement protocol properly (allowing Juan Mata's offside goal at Huddersfield was not a “clear and obvious” error). We know it interrupts the flow of a match (six minutes of added time for one half of VAR controversy at Tottenham vs Rochdale clash on Wednesday). We know it frustrates spectators, players and coaches awaiting the outcome of a decision making process they cannot observe live.
    All are costs to be weighed up against the benefits of VAR error correction. Plus the financial cost of a system, which, by its very nature, will not be deployed across the entire professional game.
    There are other drawbacks. Most of football's laws involve an element of subjectivity — with VAR you allow two referees to make judgements on key decisions. In principle, the match referee always has the final decision. In practise, there is no longer one final arbiter.
    If a referee stops a promising attack with a free kick or offside flag, play is stopped. A VAR correction cannot enable the attacker to go on and score or make a goal. So in-stadium officials err on the side of not making a decision, leaving VAR to pick up their misses. Potential repercussions are more aggressive tackling, injuries and match-flow interrupting VAR reviews.
    Even matter-of-fact decisions are problematic. IFAB state that: “checking offside positions of players has proven to be one of the more difficult tasks due to the number of variables and the very short time-span in which the decision needs to be made. The exact pitch dimensions, including any physical camber on the field as well as distortions of the camera lenses, make it very difficult for a virtual line to be drawn that accurately represents a true straight line.”
    An operator then has to decide exactly when the ball is passed to a team-mate. A similar element of subjectivity applies to VAR calls on whether a foul is in the area.
    Despite all this FIFA President Gianni Infantino is pushing for the system to be deployed at this summer's World Cup. Former Champions League Final referee Kim Milton Nielsen expects Russia 2018 to be do or die for VAR.
    “The forthcoming World Cup will need some big successes early on for the system not to cause big problems and risk rejection in the court of public opinion,” said Nielsen. “The Confederations Cup last summer hardly gave us confidence, and once again the wrong decision was reached in one game despite deliberations taking over five minutes.”
    Five minutes to arrive at the wrong answer. That's just like watching TV.