So it’s come to this. Australia is leading the way into the future of football after the A-League agreed to bring forward its rollout of video technology to rule on contentious decisions in four areas: goals; red cards; penalties; and mistaken identity.
Last week Fifa announced “extraordinary progress” had been made in the technology that would make the introduction of video assistant referees practical (VARs – get used to the terminology). Its team, led by the former Premier League referee David Elleray, works on the principle of “minimum interference for maximum benefit”.
The goal of the trials that will take place in various leagues around the world, Elleray says, is “to keep the flow and emotions of the game, while correcting clear errors in match-changing incidents”.
The A-League’s sense of urgency was prompted by David Carney’s apparent handball in the lead-up to Sydney FC’s equaliser against Melbourne Victory on Saturday night.
The new head of the A-League, Greg O’Rourke, said: “If the video assistant referee is to focus on red cards, penalties and goals, then Saturday night would have been picked up on review. The interesting thing for me being at the game was that not one person in real time saw that handball.
“Not the opposition, not the commentators, none of the fans. It was only on replays that it became obvious. That’s where the VAR will come into itself.”
What possible objections could there be to that clear error being corrected?
Let me suggest a few. In fact, let me suggest this is a truly terrible idea that will solve nothing, damage some of the game’s best characteristics and create new grounds for self-righteous whining about perceived injustice.
Judging the right incidents
The history of video technology as a means to make refereeing or umpiring calls in all sports shows that decisions can be divided into two categories. First, simple line v ball judgments, such as run-outs in cricket, line calls in tennis and incidents in football where it is unclear in real time whether a ball has crossed the goalline, typically after bouncing down off the crossbar. In all these cases, barring some technological hiccups, the use of video has become generally accepted and uncontroversial.
Much less easy to judge are more complex events that involve a greater number of moving parts, contact between players and/or the ball, and interpretations of the laws. Cricket in particular has gone through years of controversy over the fair application of the decision review system for lbw decisions and contentious catches.
If video evidence is to be used in football to rule on penalties and red cards, it is obvious that fouls and handballs will come into consideration. Anyone who has watched post-match analysis of controversial incidents cannothelp but notice that any given group of expert commentators often disagrees vehemently on such matters, even after viewing endless replays from all conceivable angles.
Elleray’s team has defined a “clear error” – meaning one that may be adjudicated using VARs – as one where “almost everyone who is neutral agrees the decision is incorrect”. But that just moves potential controversy from the substance of the incident to debate about how “clear” or otherwise the error may have been. Take this decision from Elleray’s own career (at 3m 33s). A more clear error in a match-changing incident you could not wish to see, some might argue. But can we get agreement from “almost everyone” – a definition that hardly seems likely to put controversy to bed – on that?
Going upstairs – we may be some time
Again, football seems determined to ignore the clues offered by other sports. Video adjudication works best when it can be slotted into natural breaks in play. Cricket and tennis have one after every ball or point, so waiting for the outcome does not interrupt the game unnaturally (give or take the interminable procedure while the technicians “just rock and roll that for me one more time” on DRS reviews).
The same is true for football only when a goal is scored or, arguably, when the ball is out of play.
O’Rourke is confident the A-League can “operationalise” the system effectively “to pick reviews around what we saw with Carney’s goal”.
It sounds borderline plausible in Saturday’s case that a VAR would have picked up Carney’s alleged handball and alerted the on-field referee before play restarted. But what if the opposite situation had occurred and Carney had been incorrectly penalised for a handball and the goal ruled out? Any system would have only seconds to respond before play restarted with a free-kick. Would play be brought back once it had restarted? What if a goal had been scored at the other end in the interim? Regardless of the justice or otherwise of the original decision, it is easy to imagine that rectifying it would simply fuel further controversy.
The best innovations among recent changes to football’s laws and practices have helped speed the game up and eliminate unnecessary delays (example: the multi-ball system). The worst have slowed it down (example: stopping the game for every minor injury). This one is a honking great invitation to slow it down with constant interruptions.
Get over your grievances
There are numerous other objections to the video proposal. As O’Rourke admits, “not everybody has agreed on how this will be communicated to fans and with broadcasters”. It should surprise no one if the TV companies and administrators see this move as an opportunity to introduce an extra element of “entertainment” to the experience of watching football, not to mention an extra sponsorship avenue.
But perhaps the strongest argument against the insidious march of video technology is that it strengthens the convictions of fans, players and commentators alike that a pure form of justice in sport is both achievable and desirable. It is not.
Coaches may protest that their livelihoods are put at risk by poor decisions (they rarely acknowledge undeserved financial reward when one goes in their favour). But however high the stakes may seem to them and others, football is still played, watched and refereed by humans. And ultimately anything that happens on the football field is not like a real miscarriage of justice.
Mistakes are made, people feel aggrieved, debate rages – the game goes on. It’s not the end of the world. Just live with it.
