A Discussion on Video Assistant Referee and the Future – by Keith Hackett
I had the pleasure recently to participate in a Webinar organised by SPORTING CLUBE DE PORTUGAL.
The Conference had the title ‘VAR FUTURE CHALLENGES’, and the aim of our brief was to continue to explore the use of the Video Assistant Referee in football and to share experiences.
DR. FREDERICO VARANDAS President of Sporting Clube de Portugal opened the event and outlined the reason behind the Webinar.
PADDY O’BRIEN (International Rugby Union Referee and former head of the International Rugby Board’s Referee Board) was the first guest speaker. He outlined why the TMO in Rugby was introduced.
O’Brien stated that it was to achieve:
• Accuracy of in-goal decision making
• Try or no try?
• How does the game restart?
He outlined the reasons behind the introduction of the system into Rugby.
THE ORIGINS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE SPORTS GROWTH AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
• Importance of having accuracy at the key parts of the game (points scoring)
• Credibility of decision making
• Credibility of those who make the decisions (referee)
• Viewer aligned to what the referee seeing.
Paddy then outlined in an honest appraisal of the pros and cons of TMO in Rugby:
PROS:
• Increased accuracy
• Stakeholders satisfaction
CONS:
• Length of time in matches
• Unnecessary stoppages when clear and obvious
• Referees becoming lazy and opting out of responsibilities
• Dilutes the referee’s responsibility
Paddy then outlined the evolution of TMO over 19 years:
• 2000 TMO introduced in ‘IN GOAL’ only.
• 2012? TMO extended into the field of play (foul play forward passes)
• 2015? TMO introduced in Sevens only for ‘in goal’
• 2019? TMO voice shared on television and in Stadia in some competitions
Paddy O’Brien’s vision on the implementation of VAR in football:
• Used only for whether a goal scored or not
• Used in last phases leading to a goal or if a goal to be overturned (Phase to mean last three passes)
• Not to be used for checking every decision
• Used to check player fouled or feigning
NIGEL OWEN was the next speaker who used a brilliant analogy to explain the risk of referees becoming lazy.
He used the example of VAR been like a safety net to a tightrope walker. Without a safety net, the tightrope walker takes more care understanding that if the next decision he makes is wrong he could finish up in hospital.
Owen stated that he feels that some lazy referees are losing concentration and relying on VAR to make big decisions.
Keith Hackett – I presented and debated the following points:
AN OBSERVATION HOW VAR IS OPERATING ON THE ENGLISH PREMIER LEAGUE
• Too much involvement – failing to operate CLEAR and OBVIOUS criteria
• Too many errors even following VAR review
• Fans not accepting the VAR Offside review process.
• Lack of engagement with fans
VAR – WHAT NEXT?
• VAR is here to stay
• It must evolve and improve
MY SUGGESTIONS:
• The following VAR criteria must be applied.
In a statement in an interview with The Times in London, David Elleray Technical Director of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) stated:
CLEAR AND OBVIOUS CRITERIA – The question that must be asked by the VAR is not that the decision was correct – but was the decision clearly WRONG.
OFFSIDE – The strategy must be to develop an electronic system that automatically signals offside to the referee. This was how Goal Line Technology was developed with Hawkeye and how it operates today in the Premier League.
OFFSIDE -Consider a change of Law to ensure that the attacking player is given any benefit of the doubt where tight margins are highlighted.
COMMUNICATION TO FANS – Consider using Stadium screens instead of pitchside monitors and allow the fans and media to listen to the review process and conversation between VAR and Referee
LEARN FROM OTHER SPORTS – Rugby Union, Cricket, American Football
The next Speaker was GREG BARKEY VAR Manager of Professional Referee Organisation who supplies match officials for Major League Soccer.
Greg outlined the status of PRO and VAR operations in Major League Soccer.
TIMELINE
2016 – Training Commences
5th August 2017 – First match with video review
21st December 2020 – 1307 Matches Completed
1307 TOTAL MATCHES
433 TOTAL REVIEWS
0.33 AVERAGE REVIEWS PER MATCH
VAR REVIEWED
PENALTY KICK 29% 155
RED CARDS 31% 130
GOAL 40% 144
PLAYER IDENTITY 4 Only
OVERALL REVIEW OUTCOMES MLS
90% of RED CARD reviews are recommendations to award a red card
63% of Penalty reviews are recommendations to award a penalty kick
97% of MLS goals see no VAR interventions
VAR INCREASED OVERALL ACCURACY BY 5%
All goals scored were accurate to 99.7%
They have also since the introduction of VAR have reduced the total review time from
2017 Average 2.20 minutes
2020 Average 2.05 minutes includes the use of the Referee Review area.
WHY MLS USES THE REFEREE REVIEW AREA FOR ALL REVIEWS:
• Better acceptance of decisions by stakeholders
• In stadium fans
• Broadcasters
• Technical Staff
• Low amount of additional time added
• Better player management
• Referee makes the final decision in all incidents
VIDEO REVIEW – TRANSPARENCY
DURING THE MATCH
• Video Review Communicator
• Direct channel with Broadcast
• Media
• Dedicated channel
• Use Twitter to communicate to fans
COMMUNICATION MANNER
• Contact point for questions from Producer, Director and Talent
POST MATCH
• Inside Video Review each week
• This covers the explanation of decisions
• VAR and Referee Dialogue
• View images used to make decision
• Communication Manager is the contact point for all media.
It was evident in the Conference that ongoing dialogue is essential to develop and improve the use of VAR.
Keith Hackett
About Author
