When the overwhelming majority of sports fans think of soccer, they think of one moment. The moment that defines matches. The culmination of a team’s hard work; things that come rarely and sometimes not at all.

 

            Goals.

 

            For those who are not die-hard soccer fans, this is the appeal. Exciting and flamboyant play that culminates in goals. High scoring matches are much easier to market than nil-nil draws.

 

            When teams score, they celebrate. The celebration is an overcoming of emotion, an exalting of stress for something a team has worked so hard to accomplish. It’s a moment; a few seconds. The naturalness of it is what makes it beautiful.

 

            However, soccer at a global level has seen a change over the past five years.  As mankind pushes into a more technological age, sport does as well. Many of the top leagues in the world have adopted the use of Video Assistant Referee (VAR) with the goal of removing subjectivity from decisions and ultimately getting important calls correct.

 

            VAR is the norm now. It is used in all of Europe’s “Big Five” leagues — England, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy — with the English Premier League being the last to join the fray for the 2019-2020 season. VAR made its major tournament debut in World Cup 2018, where it provided its fair share of controversy.

 

            The first that many American soccer fans saw of VAR was in the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup. The increased viewership of the WWC, largely due to the hype surrounding the United States Women’s National Team, exposed a huge number of casual soccer fans to the game who had never been interested before.

 

This was the first time VAR had been used in women’s competition. Ever. And needless to say, its debut was atrocious.

 

            There was no consistency in decisions, and referees seemed to be genuinely confused how to use VAR and even when to use it. Most notably, VAR was used countless times to adjudge goalkeepers for moving off of their line too early when facing a penalty kick. While this is stated in the laws of the game, it has effectively ceased to be administered. But now with the extra pair of eyes that VAR provides, its much easier to knit-pick situations like this.

 

            And knit-pick they did. Countless penalty saves were taken away from goalkeepers and rekicks were awarded. Arguably the most controversial moment of the entire tournament was when Argentina was awarded a penalty in second-half stoppage time against Scotland. Argentina had battled back from down 3-0 and was now down 3-2. Scotland needed to win the game to have any hope of advancing in the tournament. Scotland’s goalkeeper saved the penalty, but VAR deemed that she was off of her line. A rekick was awarded and Argentina converted it, and the game ended in a 3-3 draw.

 

            However, images surfaced immediately after the game of a freeze-frame photograph at the exact moment the Argentinian striker was making contact with the ball. The photograph showed Scotland’s goalkeeper Lee Alexander’s back foot still touching the chalk of the goal line at the exact moment of contact.

 

            On top of all of that, there were multiple instances where outfield players rushed into the 18-yard-box prematurely. This is also encroachment, and should constitute a retake. But VAR was not used in this circumstance.

 

            Not only had VAR been knit-picking and taking away huge moment, extremely difficult saves from goalkeepers; it hadn’t even gotten it right.

 

            As if that’s not frustrating enough, it’s the complete lack of consistency in applying its usage that was downright enraging. According to FIFA.com, there are “three main game-changing incidents [and one administrative]” when VAR should be consulted. These incidents are as follows

                                                                                           1) Goals

             2) Penalty Decisions

            3) Direct Red Cards

            4) Mistaken Identity

 

All of the major leagues around the world that use VAR recognize these four situations as the only time VAR should be used.

 

            So how in the world did the referees at the WWC use it in the wrong capacity? I believe a few things contributed to this. First, there had to be a misunderstanding under the category of “penalty decisions.” One of the VAR officials must have thought that because penalty kicks were one of the affected incidents, that they could utilize VAR during the taking of the penalty kick itself.

 

            However, this is clearly not the case. FIFA.com states clearly that the role of VAR in penalty decisions is only to ensure “no clearly wrong decisions have been made in the award or non-award of a penalty kick.” Thus, in laymen’s terms, it should only be used to figure out if the initial incident was a foul or not.

 

            Why did this happen? It goes back to a lack of training and understanding. None of these officials had used VAR before this tournament. None of the domestic leagues they ply their trade in week in and week out utilize this technology. So it’s not really a shock that a mistake was made.

 

            Once this happened in-game, the tournament had a decision to make. Do they admit a mistake was made, publicly apologize and proceed under the “old,” correct system? Or do they adopt it as a new precedent? It’s not hard to guess what they choose.

 

            The issue created so many problems that following the Group Stage portion of the tournament, FIFA appealed to the International Football Association Board (IFAB) for a temporary suspension of a law. The law stating that any goalkeeper who is deemed to have encroached should be issued a yellow card was poised to cause problems, because when matches inevitably began going past the 120 minutes, penalty shootouts would occur. Thus, if a goalkeeper were to be booked and then sent off in the shootout, the team would have to finish the shootout with a field player playing goalkeeper. The IFAB granted the request, temporarily suspending the rule.

 

            The snowball effect was obvious here. It was extremely obvious to seasoned football fans, and it was even obvious to many casual fans. But so what if people aren’t happy? What did it mean in the bigger picture of world football?

 

            The English Premier League, the last of the “big 5” to adopt VAR, announced before the 2019-2020 season that there would be no VAR used to adjudge goalkeeper encroachment. This precedent has continued throughout the men’s game.

 

            So why did FIFA feel the need to institute VAR into the WWC when the technology is virtually non-existent in the women’s game? Many believe it was in an effort to “elevate” the women’s game onto the same playing field as the men. However, it didn’t have to be this way.

 

            The CONCACAF Gold Cup is a men’s tournament played between federations in North and Central America. The 2019 edition of this tournament took place in the United States largely at the same time as the 2019 WWC.

           

            However, VAR was not used in the tournament.

 

            Why? Simple. There were two main reasons: cost and feasibility. Out of the 37 CONCACAF member nations, only two of the domestic leagues use VAR (Mexico and the United States).

 

            Referees for the tournament also come from the federation. So the overwhelming majority of referees would have no experience using VAR. CONCACAF elected it wasn’t worth the risk. Even though, technically speaking, their referees had slightly more experience with it than those at the WWC.

 

            Most of those who argue for the inclusion and expansion of VAR emphasize the importance of “getting the call right.” And yes, it’s impossible to argue that VAR gets more calls “correct” by the letter of the law. It does.

 

            However, for as long as the game has been formalized, the referee has been a central figure. Referees are human beings, and thus they are fallible. Nobody is perfect.

 

            Rules in football are called laws. And the laws, governed by the IFAB, are organized and written in a manner that understands that non-perfect human beings will be administering them. The phrase “in the opinion of the referee” appears in the Laws of the Game countless times, and is emphasized heavily during referee training. What this means, essentially, is that the referees, no matter what they rule, are correct and their opinions are fact.

 

            VAR creates a problem with this. Yes, video replay can and often is useful in making decisions. Getting a second look at things often makes things clearer. Hindsight is 20/20, they say. And who is looking at the replays, seeing if there was a “clear and obvious error,” as FIFA defines the threshold for an incident to be referred back to the on-field referee for reanalysis.

 

            That’s right, another human being. In all his fallible glory.

 

            The VAR official must advise the on-field official whether they feel there was a clear and obvious error egregious enough that the match official may need to overturn his original call. This referee, in some room filled with monitors, usually off-site, gets to sift through multiple angles of the incident, some of which are in slow motion.

 

            Say the VAR official feels the decision might need to be overturned. The on-field official then goes to a monitor field-side, similar to the National Football League review system. Then the official gets all the same angles and speeds of replay that the VAR official got.

 

            So why is this a problem? On the field, in live action, the referee gets one look at it. One. That’s it. In full speed. From one angle. Wherever the referee’s movement has taken him or her dictates his or her angle on the play. That’s how it happens. They may also refer to their on-field assistant referees (linesmen) for assistance.

 

            The thing that frustrates me the most is that the referees get extreme slow-motion replays of the incidents. Why is this bad? Well, for one thing, that’s not what it looked like on the field; to the players, to the coaches, to the referee himself. Secondly, and most importantly for me, is the fact that slowing down a tackle or an interaction can make it look significantly worse than it was in real time. Significantly. It can change what the referee thought he or she saw.

 

            It just doesn’t sit right with me.

 

            Recently, during one of his presentations, Dr. Laurent Dubios stated that soccer is a form of art. In fact, that was the title of his talk. “Is Soccer Art?”

 

            Yes, says the professor at Duke University. Not only is soccer likely the most universal expression of culture in the world, it is also a constant, fluid expression of feelings and ideas. Whether it is the crowd’s chants, the player’s movements, the manager’s formations, or the commentator’s words, expression is at the heart of the sport.

 

            And one of the most expressive moments in all of sports is the celebration. In soccer, scoring a goal is extremely difficult. Many matches feature few goals, and some end goalless. It also almost always takes a level of guile or sheer skill to score, especially at the top level of world football.

 

            When a player scores, the celebration is almost always a moment of emotion. While some players have signature celebrations, when a goal is scored in a huge moment of a match, the reaction is always that of pure unscripted joy.

 

             VAR takes that moment of euphoria away. The Brighton, West Ham United match on matchday 2 of the Premier League season was a perfect example. Brighton’s Leandro Trossard unleashed a venomous volley, giving the goalkeeper no chance to keep it out. The Amex Stadium erupted in joy. First-year manager Graham Potter rejoiced as Brighton keeper Maty Ryan ran all the way from his own goal to celebrate with his team. The goal meant that, in the live table, Brighton was top of the Premier League for the first time in its history.

 

            But wait. After a lengthy replay, that of greater than two minutes, the goal was taken back. Brighton’s Dan Burn had a toe offside in the build-up to the goal.

 

            Not a single West Ham player on the field protested for offside. No on-field official spotted it. But this is the age of VAR.

 

            It’s about what you value. If you value the traditional nature of the game, the beauty and the flow of the only real non-stop sport, then you are probably against VAR. If you are a perfectionist and favor getting the decision right by the letter of the law, then you probably favor VAR.

 

            But what does this mean for the future? Well, VAR is here and its here to stay. Now it’s about finding the appropriate balance.

 

             We can all agree that there are certain instances in which VAR would have been extremely useful. Diego Maradona’s “hand of God” goal in the 1986 World Cup quarterfinal certainly would not have stood in a world with VAR. In addition to that, any violent conduct that could be missed by the three (or four) on-field officials can easily be picked up and sorted out with VAR in use.

 

            However, we need to maintain the beauty of the game. The lengthy delays that VAR is causing in matches are a cause for concern. Dubios, who has attended countless soccer matches, including the 2010 Men’s World Cup in South Africa and the 2019 WWC Final, witnessed it first hand.

 

            “In France, the delays were obvious,” said Dubios. “The crowd would grow antsy. Nobody enjoyed waiting for the decisions.”

 

            In the past, one of the most controversial and difficult calls for officials to make was whether a goal had been scored when the ball was or was not successful cleared off of the goalline.

 

            The laws state that the ball must be fully over the line for a goal to be awarded.

 

            Needless to say, this is impossible to see with the naked eye. It was formerly the responsibility of the linesman to make these decisions on close calls. It was literally an impossible task.

 

            However, a handful of years ago, the last wave of new technology was berthed into football. Goalline technology tells the referee whether the ball was fully over the line by simply buzzing the watch on his wrist.

 

            Sensors on the goalline and surrounding areas are used to make this possible. It is the same technology used in tennis reviews, dubbed Hawkeye. Tennis is widely recognized for having the best review system in sports.

 

            But why is this so effective? Easy; because it happens right away. There is literally no delay. The referee in notified within two seconds whether the ball crossed the line or not.

 

            It must be said that the Premier League has instituted a system in which the head referee does not review the screen himself. His decisions are either confirmed, upheld or changed by the VAR official, who is a certified Premier League head referee himself. This has does a great job of increasing timeliness of decisions and largely eliminated the waiting game.

 

            However, VAR officials are still seeing the slow-motion replays that the on-field officials did not see. Different angles are available to them. Most importantly, though, they have a differing point of view and possibly a different demeanor toward the situation because they are not “involved” in the match. This is the biggest problem for me.

 

            Whether you agree with the usage of VAR or not, there’s one thing that all football fans—and for that matter, all sports fans—can agree on. The players should decide the game. It’s their bodies that are being put on the line and it’s their hard work that is producing results.

 

            Players, like referees, aren’t perfect. Players, like referees, make mistakes. Referees, like players, have good games and have poor games. There’s a saying: Sports are a microcosm of life. People make mistakes. I just wish we would let the referees live with their occasional mistake.