Aaaaaand we’re back, for the first Scher Drops of 2024, arriving just in time to fill the yawning chasm of free time you find yourself with this weekend.
One thing I’ve learnt pulling together this edition is that writing on topical matters is can be a little risky if you don’t finish the piece promptly. The news cycle will quickly move on and you are left with 600 redundant words on Britain’s loneliest sheep.1
I have had a half-finished piece on football’s video assistant referees (VAR) sat in my drafts for a few months now, the core of which was written in response to a particular incident (I forget which). But the joy of VAR as a theme is its evergreen nature. Missed the Spurs-Liverpool controversy? Have some Newcastle-Arsenal fun! Missed that too? Try Real Madrid’s contentious comeback against Almeria!
The other side of that coin is that every time you come back to said piece, there is more to cram in - which I think speaks to the ongoing experimental nature of VAR’s use in football.
So while they may be out-of-date in a matter of days2, in this edition you get to enjoy my thoughts on VAR. And they have been on a bit of a journey in the last two years.
If that wasn’t fun enough, we’re also trying out a new feature: a cryptic quiz! What larks. And there’s a little self-promotional plug at the end (if you can’t do that in your own Substack, where can you do it?)
All of which you can find arranged under the following headings:
Now pondering
Now quizzing
Now plugging
As ever, thoughts and feedback welcome. Enjoy.
Now pondering
Forgive me VARther, for I have sinned
I should start with a confession: I was, prior to its introduction, a strong proponent of video assistant referees. I know, I know.
Reflecting on my position, I think was driven by: the volume of pretty simple errors made by officials every week; a fundamental sense of unfairness around the outcome of so many matches (that every football fan feels but is probably exacerbated by supporting a ‘smaller’ team); a general predisposition towards modernisation (if other sports can use technology, why can’t we?); and an antipathy towards the luddite-like people who run football globally and who, for so long, were resistant to any sort of tech-driven change.
My support has gradually weakened with each passing week of VAR’s use, to the point that I now think I was wrong to back its introduction and would be in favour of (largely) removing it.
So here I make the argument as to why - despite my initial support - I think the experiment was doomed to fail. And just in case FIFA are a bunch of obstinate, self-aggrandising, out-of-touch old men who refuse to engage with the reality of their decisions (shurely not?), if VAR is here to stay I also make some suggestions for mitigating the system’s many downsides.
‘Technology’?
VAR’s first fundamental issue has been its positioning as a form of ‘technology’ to improve decision-making.
Let’s be clear: in the majority of incidents referred to VAR, we are not really talking about technology. We are talking about slow-motion replays. And unless you have been in a coma since the 1960s, I don’t think replays constitute ‘technology’ any more.
This creates a number of issues where the gap between expectation and reality undermines the whole premise of the system.
‘Using the technology’, as it is often dubbed, suggests that VAR gives referees some sort of additional power or ability - not just the chance to look at something again. And as we have repeatedly seen, watching something in slow motion, sometimes frame-by-frame, isn’t necessarily an enhancement on an initial impression - you are comparing apples with oranges. As thousands of Twitter accounts desperate for ‘engagement’ have proven, it is easy to pick a freeze frame of a tackle or a potential handball to support your argument - but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a fair reflection of what actually happened.
The positioning of VAR also carries a sense of consistency and objectivity: we tacitly expect ‘technology’ to remove human bias and error. It does not allow emotion or pressure to influence it. Yet the decision-making is still predominantly done by humans, with all the associated subjectivity that brings (more on which shortly).
Additionally, we associate technology with being fast and efficient. We use technology when it will do a job quicker and better than we can. Yet we regularly see delays north of five minutes while officials find camera angles, draw lines, and watch incidents over and over again.
And so we are left with a mis-sold system that offers very few of the benefits its promotion as ‘technology’ suggests it will - and sometimes does the opposite.
One man’s lovely tackle…
Say, for the sake of argument, we had an AI tool that was able to make accurate decisions on fouls and handballs. This would address the issue that VAR currently just shifts decisions from one human to another.
The problem, however, runs deeper than that. Football rules are inherently subjective. It is a very fluid sport with lots of moving parts and much of it is codified in unwritten rules. Some referees are lenient on physical contact to let games flow, others (Steve Martin) like to blow up at every possible opportunity (especially if the game is on Sky). What constitutes a great tackle in one division is a foul in another.
Luton manager Rob Edwards succinctly summed it up after VAR allowed his side’s controversial late equaliser to stand at Burnley last month: “That’s the problem - it comes down to opinion”.
Football fans have long been frustrated by these inherent inconsistencies in officiating. Yet VAR’s existence means that frustration is greatly exacerbated. We are no longer talking about an individual making a split-second decision, we are talking about video assistants with the benefit of time and slow-motion replays, who therefore will have far greater opportunity to reflect on the letter of the law and what has (or hasn’t) been given before. The bar for consistency is therefore higher and the failure to meet that bar is more frustrating.
How do you combat this VAR-induced heightened sense of injustice? Various football authorities have responded by issuing more granular guidance and clarifications on how to interpret various rules of the game. Yet, hydra-like, this presents further problems: how do you cover every possible eventuality? Is the official interpretation the ‘right’ interpretation? And more fundamentally, who even should decide what ‘right’ is?3
When a referee interprets something and people think they are wrong, it is a flaw at an individual level. When a system designed to remove such personal interpretations does so - whether through badly thought-through rule clarifications or by imposing a minority view on others - that system is not fit for purpose.
VAR will never be able to remove personal interpretations. So it will never work as it proponents - me included - hoped or expected it would.
Not going VAR enough
I should make clear at this juncture that writing an article on VAR wasn’t purely for its rich vein of punning opportunities
VAR has been designated to support on-field referees with a specific, limited range of key decisions. This makes practical sense: it is infeasible to stop games and allow VAR to intervene in every single aspect of a match - even if it was a quicker process.
Major events like penalties, red cards, handballs, and goals that come from fouls are all in scope. But what does VAR do when a team scores from kick-off where their players have gained an advantage by encroaching into the opposition half? Nothing. Or when a player scores a free-kick having very obviously moved the referee’s marker foam in order to take it from a better angle? Nada.
Such examples are relatively rare occurrences. But why should some infringements that lead to goals be exempted from review? I accept that you have to draw the line on intervention somewhere. But doing so in a way that allows some wrongly awarded goals to stand when everyone can see there was an error feels inherently flawed. If you are the defending team, you do not care what type of error has impacted you - just that an error has.
Ultimately, the necessary but illogical restrictions around VAR’s usage offend our Orwellian sense of justice: all ill-gotten goals are wrong, but some are wronger than others.
Even when it does work, we don’t use it
There is a similarly half-baked approach to utilising the aspects of off-field officiating support that do work well: those relating to completely objective decisions.
Goal-line technology was the first major technological intervention brought in to support referees and it has - bar the very occasional mishap - worked very well. It is near instantaneous, accurate enough that no-one questions it, and has undoubtedly improved the sport.
The logical (and to me, obvious) next step here would be to roll out the technology to all lines marking out the field of play. We regularly see huge amounts of time wasted in matches while video assistants study imperfect camera angles to try and determine if the ball is in or out (before invariably deciding they can’t see clearly enough so stick with the on-field decision). Why struggle on in this way when technology could do it far more quickly and accurately?
I recognise that it is harder implementing this over a wider area than just the goal, particularly with the question of height coming more into play. But I refuse to accept that it is beyond the means of technology providers to create a solution.
We have also seen a semi-automated offside system used in Europe. While it is not foolproof, it does appear to be better than ‘drawing the lines’ and has sped up a lot of decisions. The Premier League have been looking at introducing it and this week explained why they are yet to do so:
“When we introduce semi-automated, we want to be extremely certain that it will improve the situation and not detract from it in any manner[…]In our competition we want to be clear that we are not introducing something that will give us unintended or unanticipated problems in other areas."4
The sudden cautiousness is, I suppose, a welcome departure from the manner of the rest of VAR’s roll-out. But given semi-automated offsides a) are designed to fix some of the issues that have come about because of VAR; b) largely pertain to objective decisions; and c) are already working in other competitions, it makes little sense to delay its introduction.
The failure to recognise and lean into aspects of VAR that do work well is just another way VAR as a whole is a doomed system.
Let’s be honest about the trade-offs
Throughout this piece, I have tried to outline why I feel that VAR in a football context is too flawed to be used as is. I accept that plenty will not agree. They will point to the Premier League’s (own) data which says key match decision accuracy has improved from 82% to 96%. They will accept the system is not perfect but claim the fact we get more correct decisions means it is working.
To which I say: OK, let’s set aside any questions around the (subjective) judgement of the Premier League and accept that there has been improvement in decisions reached. That improvement is not without cost, as even VAR’s biggest proponent would have to accept. The game has slowed down significantly. There is added confusion as fans are not allowed to know what the video assistants are considering. And the cornerstone of football - scoring a goal - has been fundamentally altered by the wait for its confirmation.
So even if you reject all my arguments to this point, you are still left with the question of trade-offs. How much disruption to a match is acceptable in order to reach improved decisions? Does getting 10% more big decisions right justify regular stoppages of over five minutes? Is that purest moment of spontaneous joy - celebrating a goal - worth diminishing while a man in a room somewhere (and it is still almost always a man) decides whether it’s OK?
These are the core questions at the heart of VAR’s implementation. I am, however, yet to see any governing body seriously engage in a debate around these pros and cons. Indeed, we read this week that the Premier League’s reflections on VAR have yielded this position:
"The reviews are taking too long and it's affecting the flow of the game, and we're extremely aware of that and the need to improve that speed whilst always maintaining the accuracy."
A laudable ambition - but is it realistic? These sorts of quotes suggest the authorities are indulging in cakeism rather than actually engaging with the realities of VAR.
Perhaps if they proactively worked with fans and other stakeholders they might get more of a sense of how football is being impacted by its new technological overlords. Instead, the Premier League seem to be burying their heads in the sand. They claim that 60% of fans are in favour of VAR. But this data comes from an IPSOS poll of 1,000 UK adults and relies on respondents self-identifying as a ‘football fan’. While views from casual fans are worth considering to some degree, it is far more valuable to study the views of those who are the lifeblood of the sport. Club members, stadium goers, even TV subscribers. They help create the ‘product’, they pay the bills, they are the ones who are most affected.
And what do these fans say? Well, a Football Supporters’ Association survey in June 2023 found that almost two-thirds of the 10,000 fans asked (63.3%) were against VAR. Even allowing for the self-selecting nature of the survey participants, that is quite the discrepancy from the ‘official’ numbers.
And what about the players? There is far less freely available data but in October the Professional Footballers’ Association surveyed Football League players (i.e. those professionals in England who play outside the Premier League) and half did not want VAR introduced in their league.
Perhaps if the Premier League actually recognised what is, at best, a widespread antipathy towards VAR then perhaps we could have an honest debate about what is acceptable and what is in the best interests of the sport. But they refuse to, so the trade-offs continue to be brushed under the carpet.
We’ve come so VAR
As you will now be fully aware, I am all for binning off VAR and going back to good old on-the-field incompetency.
But I am a realist. Now the genie is out of the bottle I don’t think it’s going back in. Assuming we are stuck with the system, I don’t just want to moan about it (despite what the last 2000+ words might suggest). I want to improve it. So here’s how I would achieve that:5
Fix fundamental refereeing performance issues which go beyond VAR
Technology is only as good as those who use it. The body responsible for officials, the PGMOL, can come across as tone deaf to external concerns and occasionally arrogant. They seem to lack any serious reflection on performance or proper feedback loops (or if these do exist, they keep the rest of the world in the dark about them). These issues impact VAR in the same way it does on-field refereeing (as the Spurs-Liverpool cock-up perfectly illustrated - “well done, good process boys”). So fix those first!
Where decisions are black or white, lean into the technology more
Extend goal-line technology to the entire pitch. Semi-automated offsides work perfectly well in Europe and are undoubtedly better than ‘drawing the lines’ - bring it in without delay. Maximise the things technology is good at!
Utilise a bottom-up approach to interpreting the rules
Guidance around specific rules for VAR introduced by authorities is over-officious, often runs counter to widely understood norms, and leads to unexpected outcomes. At the start of each season, each league should crowd-source suggested decisions for a range of contentious passages of play from a panel of players, officials, and fans. This won’t solve the problem but it will help VAR reach more understandable decisions. Create buy-in!Set a hard time-limit for VAR decisions
Video checks regularly take over five minutes. In a fast-paced sport, that is an unacceptable cost to reaching an ‘improved’ decision (especially as those decisions are often still subjective). Set a time-limit: if a decision cannot be conclusively reached in that timeframe, stick with the on-field decision. Rebalance the trade-offs!
Use VAR to review all decisions before a goal
We currently have a situation where everyone can see an infringement has been committed in the build-up to a goal but if it is outside the remit of VAR nothing can be done. Utilise common sense: if something is spotted before a goal, disallow it. You may need some sort of arbitrary cut-off (say, only consider decisions within 30 seconds of the goal) but this already exists for fouls. Don’t just ignore what everyone can see!
As I say, I think there is now more than enough evidence to make a convincing case that VAR just does not work in football. It slows the game down horribly, still leaves teams feeling hard done by, and has had all sorts of unintended consequences which are changing the nature of the sport.
And were we to ditch it, its brief life won’t even have been in vein: I think fans and pundits alike are now far more sanguine about refereeing errors in non-VAR games - because they have seen what the alternative looks like.
If, however, we are stuck with it, I say to the authorities: be open to outside feedback and ideas, build some consensus around what is and isn’t working, and take some practical steps to address concerns. Things will only get worse if you stay in your i-var-y tower.
Now quizzing
And now for something completely different.
The following cryptic clues give answers that are all related. Once you get the theme the questions should become a little easier. We’ll publish the answers next edition (though feel free to drop me a line if you find the wait unbearable).
In Hatton Garden - so far, ring done! [10]
Nunnery now missing outside space [6, 6]
A small sorority? [5, 7]
I hear Latin voice at church building [8]
Mm, their mash is mashed up [11]
Initially, early undertaking - straight to oop north! [6]
Standard water source [9]
Steal livestock, we’re told: not cool [7, 6]
Virgin and the French: very dry [10]
Oddly, hoopla brought into existence [7]
Sounds like additional entrance [8]
Monarchical influence? [9]
Champ toys with record - vulgar [7, 6]
Hopefully something that will give you a few minutes of amusement as you do your daily commute/try and look busy at your desk/sit on the loo.
Now plugging
I’m not convinced anyone who has made it this far will feel the need to seek out another lengthy opinion piece by me on something football-related. But just in case…
Last month I wrote an article for the inimitable Loft for Words about the data behind QPR’s performance since manager Martí Cifuentes took over. This followed a look at just how bad we had got under his predecessor Gareth Ainsworth from October.
I am sure it has already found all of its natural audience but I wanted to flag in case anyone with a passing interest in football analytics cared to indulge me.
And if you do not have a passing interest in football analytics, you may agree with Darren’s feedback. Cheers Darren.
Fin
So ends another edition of Scher Drops.
Hope you have enjoyed, and we will be back with some more witterings (and cryptic quiz answers) in the next few weeks.
Bis dann.
For clarity, I did not write 600 words on Britain’s loneliest sheep
Only this week there was a big interview with Tony Scholes, the Premier League’s CFO (Chief Football Officer, obvs) where he outlined what he feels isn’t working with VAR - which caused some hurried re-writes. Cheers Tone.
This conundrum was perfectly illustrated by Paris Saint-Germain’s 98th minute penalty in their Champions League game against Newcastle United in November. PSG appealed when the ball hit Newcastle defender Tino Livramento on the chest, then the arm, at high speed, while he was running back into his own area. It was not initially awarded by the referee on the field, but VAR sent him to the monitor and he reversed his decision. PSG scored and drew the game, ultimately costing Newcastle a place in the next round of the competition. By UEFA’s own handball guidance, this was a correct decision. But you will be very hard-pressed to find someone (outside of Sunderland) who felt that it was a penalty. And although there was no official retraction of said guidance by UEFA, the following day several comparable handballs were not given by VAR - suggesting there was a quiet recognition they had got it wrong.
From said Tony Scholes interview. Apparently without a hint of irony.
Clearly, any vaguely competent organisation would try these things out and measure their efficacy before committing to them wholesale.
Astute levels of analytical insight overshadowed only by elite levels of punning