Officiating a football game is arguably one of the hardest jobs out there. Referees are forced to make difficult spontaneous decisions that can quite literally change the outcome of a game. Unlike the players and coaches, the referees have no supporters, they are on their own. Above all, referees don’t get to watch a play multiple times or in slo-mo (like us) to make their decisions. They have to trust their eyes and ears or their assistant referees. This can be tough because a momentary lapse of concentration or an incident behind their back can go unnoticed and will undoubtedly be scrutinized by fans and players and coaches after the game.
Nevertheless, the most frustrating thing (as a fan watching from home) is when a referee makes a blatant error and it's so obvious in the replay. We are all thinking, “why can’t they just check the replay, It will hardly take a minute”. Yet, reviewing replays or using other forms of technology to make a better decision isn’t allowed in football due to the delay and break in the flow of the game it will cause. However, over the years there have been many technological advancements to solve this problem of making the right decisions without delaying the game. But as with all forms of technology, there is always an advantage and disadvantage. Here, we will look into some of them.
Goal Line Technology:
During the 2010 FIFA World Cup, England was down 2-1 against Germany when midfielder Frank Lampard looked to have equalized in the 39th minute. However, Uruguayan official Mauricio Espinosa failed to spot that Lampard’s long-range drive had actually bounced at least a foot over the goal line before bouncing back out. England ended up losing the match 4-1, and the controversy that ensued changed football forever.
Despite resisting it for years on grounds that too much technology slows down the beautiful game, FIFA was compelled to use goal-line technology for the 2014 World Cup, and the success of GLT has made it a normality in the modern game.
The GLT system uses several electronic devices, both inside and outside the ball, to track the path of the ball and notify the referee whether the ball has crossed the goal line or not. The information recorded by these gadgets is transmitted within a split second to a special watch worn by the referee. If a goal is scored (the ball is deemed to have crossed the line by GLT) then the referee’s watch vibrates and the word ‘goal’ appears on the watch screen. If the ball doesn’t cross the line completely, the referee’s watch is not triggered and he/she can wave play-on. This technology ensures immediate response so there are no stoppages or other forms of delay in the game.
GLT has reduced the margin of error in football by a lot but it turns out that the technology is not completely full proof. On June 17th 2020 an error by the goal-line technology denied Sheffield United a clear goal against Aston Villa after the Villa goalkeeper Ørjan Nyland clearly carried the ball over the goal line on mishandling a free-kick. The game ended in a
0-0 draw, meaning the GLT denied goal could have been the match-winner, thus adding to the controversy.
Later, Hawk-Eye, the company whose GLT software was used during this game, apologised, explaining the failure as due to an anomalous amount of occlusion of its cameras' view of the incident. This level of occlusion has never been seen before in over 9,000 matches where this technology has been used.
Video Assistant Referee:
Video Assistant Referee or VAR, a replay review system, was introduced to football for the first time in 2018. Operating under the philosophy of "minimal interference, maximum benefit", the VAR system seeks to provide assistance to referees in making major match influencing decisions (like whether a goal should stand, the penalty should be awarded or direct red card should be given). Thus, VAR provides a way for "clear and obvious errors" and "serious missed incidents" to be corrected.
The VAR system, like GLT, has a very intricate technological set-up. A VAR team, stationed in the video operation room, automatically checks every on-field referee decision falling under the four re-viewable categories (Goal/No-goal, Penalty/ No-penalty, Straight Red Card, Mistaken Identity). If the VAR does not identify any 'clear and obvious' mistake during the check, this is communicated to the referee through his/her earpiece. This is called a 'silent check', requiring no further action and causing no delay to the game. At other times, a VAR check may cause the game to be delayed while the Video Assistant Referee ascertains whether or not a possible mistake has occurred. The referee may delay the restart of play for this to occur, and indicates an ongoing check by pointing to his/her ear.
When the VAR does identify a possible 'clear and obvious error', there are three possible scenarios:
Referee's on-field decision overturned on the advice of VAR
On-field review (where referee goes to a pitchside monitor to review the replay himself/herself) is recommended
Referee chooses to ignore VAR advice
A decision can generally be overturned without an On-field review (OFR) where it relates to a factual matter. For example, offside decisions or whether a foul occurred inside or outside the penalty area can be determined by the VAR. An OFR is generally recommended where there is a subjective decision to make, such as whether a foul was committed or whether a red card is warranted for a certain offence. However in all cases, the final decision rests with the referee, and they can choose to ignore the advice of the VAR altogether.
The first major implementation of VAR was during the 2018 FIFA World Cup and it was a remarkable success. According to FIFA, the VAR system had a success rate of 99.3 percent during the World Cup, up from the 95 percent of correct calls by referees without VAR.
However, VAR has undergone much speculation since and critics argue that VAR creates as much confusion as clarity. While it is true that most decisions were made correctly as a result of VAR, some were wrong despite VAR review and some decisions which were called incorrectly were not even reviewed. Its also seen that VAR has been most effective for factual decisions such as offsides and mistaken identities, while subjective decisions such as penalties or red card offences have fared much worse. Everyone agrees that the idea of Video Assistant Referee is not a bad one but the implementation of the system is an issue. Lack of clarity and consistency are two main reasons why VAR has not been accepted with favour by many in the modern game.
Comments