Graeme McGarry
VAR is joyless enough but if it can’t be relied upon then what’s the point?
EARLIER this season, I attended a match with my sons on a rare Saturday off. Both of them are Motherwell daft. Goals for The Steelmen aren’t all that common an occurrence, so you may have thought that when the ball hit the back of the net, they would have gone tonto.
They used to. But this time, the celebrations were rather muted. And why? Had they grown out of it?
They are only seven and 12, so it couldn’t be that. No, the reason soon became apparent. They were waiting on the all-clear from VAR.
For many thousands of people throughout Britain and probably the world, the moment that they jumped the dyke into the “get rid of VAR” camp happened at the weekend, as Coventry City and their fans were robbed of one of the greatest comeback stories in FA Cup history by the infernal technology.
For me, it was that day at Fir Park. Granted, I will admit to having been a sceptic almost from day one, surmising rather quickly that the stoppages and long waits ran contrary to just about everything that made football great in the first place.
Regular readers will know that this is unlikely to be a measured, reasoned appraisal of VAR – more of a spittle-flecked invective against it. But just in case you are new to the column, let me be up front about that from the get-go.
As the use of VAR has unfolded, though, it has proven to be an even more brazen thief of joy than predicted, and live on national television at the weekend, it showed exactly why there now needs to be serious pressure put on the game’s governing bodies to dispense with it into whatever dark, godforsaken hell-pit from whence it came.
Unless you don’t know what it’s like to utterly lose yourself in the euphoria of a big goal for your team, you have a gaping hole in your chest where your heart should be or you support Manchester United (perhaps, all three), then you cannot defend what took place at Wembley
at the weekend. Inevitably, though, there were VAR apologists out there who argued that all that mattered was that the right decision was reached.
Was it? For a start, you will never convince me that chopping off a goal for offside when a striker’s big toe is the only thing the wrong side of the line – and said forward has gained no advantage from his position – is the “right” decision.
That is not enough, for me, for the incredible moment that was shared by the Coventry supporters to be dashed in such devastating fashion.
But leaving aside the romance of the story and the circumstances themselves, are we even sure that the correct call was made?
There is conflicting evidence, with the lines drawn on the pitch looking to go over the foot of Manchester United defender Aaron Wan-Bissaka, and footage from other angles appearing to show that
at the point the pass was played forward, Coventry striker Haji Wright was in fact onside.
The trouble is, when it comes to such marginal calls, the technology simply isn’t reliable enough to give a definitive answer. The frame rate of the cameras and the quality of the images needs to improve before VAR can be relied upon to make such marginal, monumentally gamealtering decisions.
A study by Dr Pooya Soltani of the University of Bath in 2022 using motion capture technology concluded that VAR was useful in correcting obvious mistakes, but “not precise enough to give accurate judgments every time”.
Dr Soltani said: “VAR is really useful in helping referees make accurate decisions, but this study has shown it has definite limitations.
“The frame-rate and resolution of the cameras used in VAR sometimes does not keep pace with the fast
movements, meaning that sometimes the player or the ball is blurred.
“So, the viewer has to use their own judgement to extrapolate where the players were at the moment the ball was kicked, which affects whether it is offside or not.
“My research found that the ball was kicked 132 milliseconds earlier than the participants perceived, which doesn’t sound like much, but in a fast-paced game it could be long enough for the players to be in a different location and therefore could potentially change the outcomes of offside. This goes to show that whilst VAR is useful to spot obvious errors, it shouldn’t be relied upon completely to make referee decisions.”
So, having tampered with the flow of the game, robbed fans of countless moments of joy, and generally been a massive pain in the backside, we can’t even be certain that in marginal calls VAR will actually be able to determine what has factually occurred.
I often hear that we must have VAR, but must we really?
Another of the pro-VAR arguments fell by the wayside this week with a large part of the flimsy premise for its insidious presence being the ability of our referees to officiate at major tournaments. We’d be a backwater without it, apparently.
Well, the list of referees was announced this week for the European Championships in Germany, and lo and behold, none of our lads made the cut. In
Scotland, the only thing VAR seems to have highlighted effectively – in glorious slow motion – is just how inept many of our officials are.
And would you credit it? A team of Swedish referees, from the one significant UEFA member league that has held out on introducing VAR, have in fact been selected to officiate at the tournament. Go figure.
If anyone can make a valid argument for keeping VAR in its current form, or even give me just one single redeeming feature, then I’d love to hear it.
Of the many arguments for ditching it, though, the chief one for me is that it is taking the fun out of going to the football for fans, just like my sons. That, I am afraid, is one VAR overreach too far.
The trouble is, when it comes to such marginal calls, the technology simply isn’t reliable enough to give a definitive answer