On The Spot: The case for VAR

On Saturday, criticisms for the new video assistant referee (VAR) system reached a new high in the FA Cup match between Huddersfield Town and Manchester United, as Juan Mata’s goal was ruled out for being marginally offside. While Hawk-Eye, the company that provides VAR technology, has since apologized for providing misleading images to television viewers at home, it still leaves many questions unanswered about the application of the system.

According to the International Football Association Board, VAR is only meant to be used to correct "clear errors and for missed serious incidents" in "match-changing" situations. There’s no question that Mata’s goal was "match-changing," but it brings up serious questions about what "clear errors" refer to. I’ve found myself going back to the replay and vacillating between offside and not — and I’m being objective about this!

Let’s go back in time to when the last major technological change was made in soccer. Former FIFA president Sepp Blatter was originally against the introduction of goal-line technology (GLT), but he changed his mind after Frank Lampard’s disallowed strike for England against Germany in the 2010 World Cup.  It’s obvious what the introduction of the GLT system has done — it’s reduced the frequency of players crowding the referee for a decision to go their way and made the game smoother. I don’t hear people complaining about the lack of controversy there.

VAR is something that current FIFA president Gianni Infantino is seeking to implement. However, it amuses me to see that many other players, such as Luka Modric and Gianluigi Buffon, are against VAR. The reason for their disapproval to the new system is because they want the game to remain 'human.' If anything, though, the bigger outrage should be at how inequitable VAR's application has been this year in the FA Cup. How is it fair that only some games — and the decisions in those games — are put under review?

To all my non-NFL watching friends reading this, perhaps this is where my experience watching the NFL comes in (and yes, I know that instant replay in the NFL is under fire for what a "catch" is). Ultimately, I’m convinced that having a video replay system does more right than wrong, and the same argument about what constitutes a catch applies here. Let common sense and the rule of 'clear and incontrovertible' prevail. It’s the best kind of compromise. Only when there is obvious evidence to overturn the decision on the field should that action be undertaken. While there’s criticism of how much time it might take to review the decision, some of these decisions can be made in the same time players take to restart play anyway. Besides, isn’t that what stoppage time is for?

Blatter saw that he was on the wrong side of history and changed his mind. Implementing VAR would take tweaking the system, but it’d ultimately be for the better.