Why on-field officials must remain part of VAR process

July 27, 2018 by
VAR process

Photo credit: Oleg Bkhambri

If this year’s edition of the FIFA World Cup proved anything — besides the value of a diverse, young player pool — it’s that we’ve inexorably entered a new era of professional soccer, driven by technology. The inclusion of goal-line tech and Video Assisted Referee (“VAR”) brought the minutia of the beautiful game’s international wing into sharp focus as match officials had the opportunity to review and overturn their own decisions. Rather than seethe with frustration — or exhale in quite relief — fans and players contended with the looming specter of in-camera review. VAR induced officials to correct 20 errant calls — most resulting in penalty kicks — allowing the eventual match outcomes to better reflect their true character. While the benefits of VAR are plain, some have argued that it doesn’t go far enough. Beyond adding more reviewable plays, some argue that the role of the center referee should be further diminished, substituting VAR’s judgment in their place when possible. The complete argument can be found here. I respectfully disagree.

To understand the disagreement, we must first examine how VAR works. While some systems are more expansive than those employed during the World Cup, allowing a multitude of calls to be reviewed, I will focus on its application at the World Cup. At the World Cup, VAR could be used to review: 1) fouls occurring within the penalty area, 2) possible red card offenses, 3) offsides, and 4) cases of mistaken identity in issuing a booking. Of these applications, two concern objective decisions, offsides and mistaken identify, while the other two, red card offenses and fouls in the penalty area, are distinctly subjective. When VAR is used for objective decisions, the referee is notified and must correct the call accordingly. In contrast, subjective decisions require the referee to decide to both review the call and overturn it. Some view splitting the referee’s authority in this manner as “the worst of both worlds[,]” because it both undermines and overextends the center referee’s authority. However, a review of the role of the center referee reveals that this division is both a natural outgrowth of their authority and the best means of administering the game.

The role of the referee is, first and foremost, to administer the game in a safe manner that conforms to the Laws of the Game. While officials typically work in teams, the presence of multiple referees is something of a red herring. In reality, only one official — the center referee — has any actual authority. The assistant referees on each end of the pitch, responsible for signaling out of bounds, offsides, and alerting the center referee to misconduct, are ultimately advisors who provide recommendations. While not particularly prudent, a center referee can choose to accept or ignore their recommendation and substitute their own decision as they see fit. The idea of a central authority stems back to the early days of soccer, when each team was responsible for providing a match official. The pairing of inevitably partisan officials gave way to the modern center referee as teams recognized the need for a neutral arbitrator. Eventually neutral assistant referees were added to the typical retinue, but the idea of a central authority remained. The underlying concept is that, by creating a single point of authority, players are assured a more consistently officiated match and that there is no risk of integrity when two referees of equal stature disagree. Given the subjective nature of many calls — and the potential for divergent interpretations of a play — this makes perfect sense. Even ostensibly objective decisions — such as offsides or out-of-bounds — can produce differing opinions, requiring an overarching authority to issue a decision. However, VAR introduces an effectively infallible assistant referee, whose “opinion” cannot be ignored. By separating review criteria for subjective and objective decisions, FIFA has managed to effectively reconcile the traditional authority of the center referee with its efforts to encourage a perfectly administered match.

FIFA’s current split between on-field review and mandatory acceptance of a VAR review is a sensible outgrowth of the historic role of the center referee. In cases of objective review, the center referee cannot decline to accept the findings of VAR. In non-VAR matches, this authority makes some sense. Unbeknownst to the assistant referee, the center referee may see a late deflection that changes an out-of-bounds determination, or notice that a defensive player clearly held an attacking player onside. While referees do their best to avoid these divergent opinions, the centralization of decision making authority in the center referee ensures that there is no controversy over which interpretation is superior. However, the infallible nature of VAR removes any incentive to grant the center referee complete authority in objective decision making. At the end of the article advocating full VAR authority, the author draws a scenario in which a referee ignores a signal from goal-line technology indicating that a goal was scored. This scenario is a clearly objective decision — the ball was either in or out of the goal — that should be fully removed from the referee’s decision making authority when a perfectly objective perspective exists. The decision to willfully ignore an objective outcome, supported by incontrovertible fact, represents outright misconduct by the referee, not a flaw in the system. I agree that, in instances of objective decision making, referees are obliged to accept VAR (or other technological findings) without review. However, where the subjective application of the laws is drawn into question, authority must rest with the center referee.

One of the first things taught when training to become a soccer referee is that a foul called at midfield in the first minute of a game must also be called in the penalty area in the 90th minute. Ironically, one of the first things learned when actually officiating a game is that this isn’t always true. While, in a perfect world, the game would be administered in a perfectly consistent manner across all age levels, skill levels, and situations, the fact of the matter is that this is unrealistic. Part of what makes the Laws of the Game so resilient is that they afford referees the necessary flexibility to adapt to each individual game. Even at the professional level, where administration should be largely unaffected by the challenges of inequity found in youth soccer, referees are afforded subjective flexibility to best administer their matches. This is why VAR cannot — and should not — become a mandate for officials. By taking authority away from the center referee and placing it in the hands of an authority beyond appeal and to whom no one — the referee included — can truly adjust to, diminishes a key characteristic of the game. If FIFA were to install a system of mandatory override of discretionary decisions by VAR, the legitimacy of the center referee would be drastically diminished and their capacity to effectively administer the game would consequently suffer. A strong referee can keep a tense, emotional game from collapsing into violence. If players, and the officials themselves, lose this central point of authority, a key element of control is lost.

The merits of VAR, how far it should extend into the game, and how the Laws of the Game must adjust accordingly is a debate that the professional and international soccer communities must indulge. Just as the FIFA routinely reexamines the laws themselves, their administration must similarly evolve to help each match reach the outcome that best reflects its true character. At the 2018 World Cup, 455 plays were unofficially reviewed by VAR, with a mere 20 requiring review by the center referee. In each of these instances, the referee overturned their own decision.

With this in mind, it may seem prudent or expedient to simply have the center referee accept the recommendation of VAR and overturn their own decision sight unseen. However, for the sake of the integrity of the game, its history, and, perhaps most of all, the authority of the center referee, they must ultimately make the decision on their own accord.

Follow Bryan on Twitter: @BDMedema.

Support Soc Takes on Patreon for access to exclusive content and supporter benefits. Click here to become a patron today.

Tags
Categories
HOMESTORIES

by Soc Takes - Jul 27, 2018

by Nipun Chopra - Jul 27, 2018

RELATED BY