VAR – What needs to be done by Keith Hackett
VAR – What needs to be done
Over recent weeks I have answered a large number of questions from various forms of the media regarding the Video Assistant Referee (VAR).
I have no doubts that the way it is being operated by the Professional Game Match Officials (PGMOL) is failing, mainly because of the way it has been implemented.
PHILOSOPHY
The aim of Video Assitant Referees (VAR) is not to achieve 100% accuracy for all the decisions as there is no desire to destroy the essential flow and emotions of football which result from the game’s almost non-stop action and the general absence of lengthy stoppages. The philosophy is:
‘minimum interference – maximum benefit’
To ensure that the referee (not the VAR) is the key match official, the referee will always make a decision (except a ‘missed’ usually ‘off-the-ball’ incident), including the decision that no offence has occurred. The referee’s decision can only be changed if the video review shows a clear error, i.e. not ‘was the decision correct?’ but ‘was the decision clearly wrong?’.
REVIEWABLE DECISIONS
Match officials make hundreds of decisions in every match, including decisions that an offence has not occurred. It would be impossible (without completely changing football) to review every decision. Therefore the use of VARs is restricted to four categories of match-changing decisions/incidents:
* Goals / no goal decisions
* Penalty / no penalty decisions
* Direct red cards (not second yellow cards)
* Mistaken identity
In all of these situations, the VAR is only used after the referee has made a decision (including allowing play to continue) or if a serious incident is ‘missed’ i.e. not seen by match officials.
The final decision is always taken by the referee, either based on information from the VAR or after the referee has undertaken an ‘on-field review’ (On Field Review.
There is no time limit for the process as accuracy is more important than speed.
The players and team officials must not surround the referee or attempt to influence if a decision is reviewed, during the review process or the final decision.
The referee must remain ‘visible’ during the review process to ensure transparency.
If play continues after an incident which is then reviewed, any disciplinary action taken/required during the post-incident period is not cancelled, even if the original decision is changed (except a caution or sending-off for stopping a promising attack or denial of obvious goal-scoring opportunity).
If play has stopped and been restarted, the referee may not undertake a ‘review’ except for a case of mistaken identity or for a potential sending-off offence relating violent conduct, spitting, biting or extremely offensive, insulting and/or abusive gesture(s).
The period of play before or after an incident that can be reviewed is determined by the Laws of the Game and VAR protocol.
As the VAR will automatically ‘check’ every situation/decision, there is no need for coaches or players to request a ‘review’.
The above spells out the main points of the protocol and there is clearly a shortfall in how it is currently operated and also dismisses the comments in some recent newspaper articles.
Some reports centre on a possible improvement where each manager has three interventions – this is clearly against the protocol.
I would take the following steps:
1. Create a panel of former top referees to be VARs
2. Use the pitch-side monitors
3. Let spectators purchase ‘REFLINK’ inside the stadium to listen to the referee review and what is being discussed between VAR and Referee
4. Show the incident and the review process on the big screen inside the stadium
5. Ensure that the Referee and VAR stick to the VAR criteria. ‘Serious and obvious error’
6. More training – more accountability
7. Review post-match every VAR decision to determine the accuracy and hold workshops then with the group to share knowledge
8. Keep the managers informed
9. Change the management team
-Keith Hackett
Former FIFA Referee
Former Head of PGMOL
About Author
