Game Daily | Bill Edgar
October 1 2019, 12:00pm, The Times
Only 5 per cent of goals are ruled out by VAR – so have a bit more patience
Bill Edgar
Share
Save
It is easy to forget, amid the perfectly understandable focus on the negatives of VAR, that before this season the Premier League regularly produced “false” results that occurred as a consequence of the rules not being applied. On-field officials were unable to keep track of play completely because it was too fast and complicated; and, because football is a low-scoring game, their resulting mistakes often changed the outcome of matches.
We are seven rounds into the first Premier League season to feature VAR and the new system is having a significant effect: 14 teams would be in different places in the table were it not for video assistance allowing errors to be corrected, often altering results. For example, Manchester United would be four places higher than they are, and Aston Villa three places better off; Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur would both be three places lower while Southampton would be in the relegation zone rather than 14th. Liverpool and Manchester City would still be first and second, but Jürgen Klopp’s team would be just one point ahead of their big rivals rather than five.
A total of 14 decisions have been overturned by VAR. One of those involved the retake of a penalty, so in itself did not add or remove a goal (the retaken penalty still had to be converted), but the other 13 all saw a goal added (twice) or taken away (11 times). The two added goals both followed the on-field officials wrongly indicating offside; of the 11 struck off, eight were for offside, two for handball and one for a foul. You might not like the rule that says an inadvertent handball by an attacker in the build-up to a goal should be penalised, but rules must be applied consistently and VAR allows that to be achieved more easily.
The main drawback of VAR — as was clear from the moment the idea was raised many years ago — is that goal celebrations of players and fans might become (or have already become) restrained because of the possibility that the on-field referee’s decision could be overturned. The early weeks of VAR in the Premier League have certainly not solved this problem, but context should be considered. There have been 214 occasions when the ball has hit the net and the on-field referee has awarded a goal, so the aforementioned 11 VAR overturns represents a rate of only 5.1 per cent.
There have been times this season where it might have appeared that it was hardly worth getting excited when a goal was scored — a series of VAR overturns in high-profile, televised matches gave the impression to casual football followers that it was happening regularly — but the fact that only about one in 20 goals have been overturned means that goals can still be celebrated with reasonable confidence that they will stand.
Nevertheless, speed is of the essence, so VARs and their technical helpers should practise hard at delivering much quicker verdicts on offside (the most common cause of goals being struck off), which certainly seems an achievable target. It has taken an average of one minute, 23 seconds to overturn the eight goals that were wrongly allowed when an attacker had been offside.
The matter of delays is less important in deliberations over possible penalties — unlike with goals, the award of spot kicks do not prompt wild celebrations that might be diluted by the possibility of VAR intervention — although the quicker the better, of course. The more important issue surrounding penalties is the complete lack of overturns so far this season. VAR has given the green light to all 16 penalties to have been awarded by the on-field referee, while deciding that not one of the many contentious incidents in the box should result in a spot kick.
This is where a radical change might be needed. The VAR should not be required to see a clear and obvious mistake before advising an overturn.
(By the way, the definition of “clear and obvious” is left vague, perhaps deliberately. Does it mean that in the judgment of the VAR ten out of ten referees would give a penalty if they saw the incident clearly, or nine out of ten, or perhaps that the VAR himself is simply in no doubt at all?)
Aubameyang’s goal last night was only awarded after a referral to VARBradley Ormesher for The Times
Instead the VAR should merely decide that he would have given the penalty himself if he had seen the incident clearly while refereeing on the pitch. He is a Premier League referee himself and we should just accept that it is almost always easier to decide whether a penalty should be awarded if you are a VAR, able to focus on the relevant piece of action from various angles, than if you are the on-pitch official. The same should apply to cases of a potential sending-off. Again, this season there have been no cases of a red card being either withdrawn or imposed after VAR review.
So there are VAR problems to be overcome, but its benefits should not be overlooked. Ultimately, though, the system should be given at least one full season before discussions begin on whether to retain it. Opinions have often changed after the early days of a new rule in football — many initially criticised the introduction in 1992 of the ban on goalkeepers handling a pass from a team-mate, but soon such dissent all but disappeared – so let’s wait before making the decision to overturn VAR itself.
