Video Hindered Refereeing?

The debate around the benefits of VAR in football was reignited this week after 3 Champions League ties were decided by controversial VAR assisted refereeing decisions. This highlighted the limitations of the technology just days after the North London Derby conclusively proved its benefits ahead of a planned introduction in the Premier League next season.

Derby Day Decisions

Last weekend the talking point was the North London Derby, which was decided by a controversial penalty decision given for a foul on Harry Kane when he was clearly offside. The Arsenal players protested the penalty vehemently, but without VAR there was nothing referee Anthony Taylor could do. The assistant referee didn't raise the flag for offside, and Taylor was in the wrong position to be able to overrule him.

As it happened, the late penalty missed by Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang was also a marginal call, with some Arsenal fans acknowledging that Davison Sanchez's clumsy challenge on Aubameyang wasn't strong enough to justify a penalty. The Gabonese striker clearly went to ground deliberately in the hope of getting a penalty, rather than because of the impact of the challenge.

It was likely that Taylor finished the match wishing he had VAR to help him see the two penalty incidents from different angles. He didn't have a great view of either incident, so was forced to make decisions based on initial impressions. Even an experienced top referee will make mistakes in these circumstances.

PSG vs United

However, any claim that VAR is a magic bullet capable of resolving all controversial calls was blown away in Paris on Wednesday, where PSG were knocked out of the Champions League by a Marcus Rashford penalty given for handball against Presnel Kimpembe. The incident was immediately referred to VAR. Whilst the replays provide a good view of what happened, they don't help in deciding whether a foul was committed. The ball definitely hit the Frenchman's elbow, but there is no clear consensus about whether the contact was deliberate or whether his arm was in a natural position. Some observers claim that his elbow was deliberately outstretched, but others disagree.

VAR can help referees see the movement of the ball and of players, but it can't decipher the player's intent or whether their motions are natural. In Kimpembe's case, the penalty was probably given because he deliberately turned his back on the ball, which is often a sign of bad intentions. Even if he didn't intend to handle the ball, he knew there was a possibility it could happen and turned his back in the hope he would be let off as accidental handball rather than given as deliberate handball. This is a choice that ultimately backfired, and days later the Internet is still debating whether a penalty should have been given in the circumstances and whether VAR helped in resolving the incident.

Real Madrid vs Ajax

VAR was also a debating point in this week's other big Champions League upset. An outstanding team performance by a young Ajax team was marred by the controversial nature of their third goal, in which the ball appeared to stray beyond the touchline during the build-up. Noussair Mazraoui did his best to keep the ball in play before setting up the move which led to Dusan Tadic's strike, but Real Madrid protested the goal as soon as it hit the back of the net. Different perspectives showed different outcomes, with the overhead camera showing the ball was clearly out of bounds but the touchline camera showing the ball just in play. Both the referee and his assistant sided with the touchline camera allowing the goal to stand. That's probably a fair decision as disallowing a goal over a marginal call several minutes previously is very harsh. It would only be fair if it was clearly beyond any reasonable doubt that the ball did go out of play, which wasn't the case given the camera angles used.

Without VAR, there would have been little debate about whether the goal should have stood. Ultimately, the problem was with the camera angles available to the officials. They weren't good enough. None of them were straight down the line, as they are on the goal line. This makes it difficult to judge whether the ball fully crosses the line or not. A camera level with the advertising hoardings introduces an element of doubt by distorting the viewpoint. It is possible that a camera at the optimum angle would have changed the referee's decision, if not the outcome of the match.

Porto vs Roma

VAR had a clear impact on the outcome of Wednesday's other Champions League tie in Portugal, where the home team were given a penalty late in extra time that ultimately proved the difference. The penalty was awarded for a shirt tug by Alessandro Florenzi on Fernando whilst the Porto striker was attempting to get on the end of a Maxi Pereira cross. The referee judged that Florenzi's action was strong enough to pull Fernando back and block him from making an attempt on goal. Most neutrals believe the incident to be a penalty, but it is controversial because the referee didn't see it during normal play. He actually referred the incident to VAR for offside, which wasn't given and was informed of the challenge on Fernando by the Video Referee during their discussions. After an on-field review, the penalty was given.

Roma feel particularly aggrieved because they were subsequently denied a penalty for a challenge on Patrik Schick right at the death, with the referee refusing to consult VAR replays on the pitch side monitor. He did see the incident during normal play and did refer it to the video referee to review, but the results were inconclusive, so the referee stuck with his initial impression and refused to award a penalty.

An Overdue Innovation

It is the perception of double standards between the two incidents that has annoyed the Italians. If VAR had been consulted pitch side in both cases, then their complaints would have been more muted. Without VAR neither incident would have been given in the first place, and the tie would have been settled by a penalty shoot-out. Referees need to be conscious of the need to appear impartial. Handling VAR decisions in the same manner every time goes a long way to achieving this.

VAR is an important innovation in football, and long overdue, but it can only provide a limited amount of additional information in any given situation. In all three Champions League ties, it failed to give a clear answer in some highly marginal incidents, either because of limited camera angles or because it cannot offer an opinion on intent. Experienced referees still need to use their judgement to fill in the gaps, and make decisions based on the available evidence. Sometimes they will get these decisions wrong, but at least they will make fewer such mistakes. It is vital that FIFA and IFAB continue to review VAR and the laws of the game, with the aim of minimising these grey areas. In the meantime, progress is being made after years of delays and obstructions. That is something for which we should all be thankful.