The Azzrentice 2019 - Task 3 - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Actually, the referee is watching a replay on a crappy screen and has decided to rename the task How to Fix VAR

VAR was supposed to prevent arguments. It could be debated that it has in fact, had the opposite effect. A new rule has been introduced where players can be booked for making a TV screen signal, but there is even more dissent with VAR.

See three examples of games with VAR in use which have not worked:

Iran vs Portugal (World Cup 2018)
There were two early incidents which went against Iran, with Cristiano Ronaldo winning a penalty and also being very fortunate not to be sent off. But late on, Cedric Suarez knocked the ball down onto his arm. The referee initially did not give a penalty following a handball. VAR appeared to initially decide that it was not worthy of a review. But following continued protests from the Iran players, the referee eventually caved in and checked the penalty with VAR. Controversially, the penalty was given, despite a similar incident involving Marcos Rojo not being given as a red card. It showed that continued pressure from the players to go to VAR does pay off, with referees feeling obliged to check decisions they initially thought correct.


Chelsea vs Norwich (FA Cup Third Round)
In a controversial game which went to a penalty shootout, Willian was tripped in the area. The referee in real time thought it was a dive and booked the Chelsea player. The video replays showed there was contact, but VAR did not get involved. The referee of the day was not informed that a review was required. This is an example of VAR not being used even in such occasions where it should be being used to overturn a decision which is clearly incorrect.


England vs Cameroon (Women's World Cup 2019)
England went 2-0 up in the first half, with controversy around the first two goals. The second in particular was initially given as offside, but was changed by VAR to allow the goal to stand. In the second half, Cameroon had a goal given but then ruled out due to a marginal offside decision. For the second time in the match, the Cameroon players looked like they would walk off the pitch. Despite spitting on a England player, a horrific last minute tackle on Steph Houghton and Nikita Parris being hit in the face, there was no red card given. Disciplinary proceedings are currently in progress, but VAR did not step in and give a red card when it should have been given, and causes chaos and anger with decisions being overturned.

The overall takeaway is that even with VAR, there are several examples of its use which have been seen as incorrect. There also the element of 'spoiling' celebrations when goals are scored, breaking that euphoria. VAR does have its advantages but this presents a case for an alternative, which involves improved refereeing, better communication, increased retrospective action, and other technologies.

For the purposes of this submission, our main focus on a future without VAR is on the Premier League and the Champions League/Europa League.

Changing the Rules
One of the biggest problems with VAR is that the rules are not the same in football as other sports, like rugby. In rugby, the rules are much more straight and fast which means that when a decision is to be made, it is based on a strict rule. Some of the rules need to be changed to help referees with consistency. One example that has worked is the new handball rule in the Champions League. The change has led to more contacts being given as handball, but it has removed many of the shades of grey with consistency in the decision making. We would want to do similar things in other areas of the game.


Media Involvement
During the season, we would like a representative from the PGMOL to be part of a weekly show, which looks at the major refereeing decisions from the past Premier League gameweek. There would be a positive spin on this, with correct and good decisions highlighted as well as picking up on the controversy. We currently have a big problem with a lack of young people wanting to take on refereeing and this would certainly go some way to help.

Some have suggested that referees should give post-match interviews, but we think that this is unfair on them. It puts them too much into the spotlight. Referees get reviewed internally already, and we feel that this is a good middle ground.

Jamie Carragher and Gary Neville did a show a few years ago for Sky Sports, in which they spoke to referees and looked at what went on behind the scenes. This was generally well received, with the general public having a much greater understanding of what went on and more sympathy for referees. We think that this is the sort of thing that can be built on.



Increased retrospective action
At present, retrospective action is generally conducted by a three man panel. This replaced the referee on the day looking back at their incidents. We are of the opinion that the referee of the game should be involved in the retrospective action. They know what they were thinking at the time of the decision and are best placed to review that decision.

Diving and simulation can be looked at, with Oumar Niasse being one of the few players to get a ban for diving to win a penalty. We think that there are many more examples of players who should have received bans but didn't. In isolation, this may seem a harsh punishment but the problem is that not enough dives are retrospectively acted upon to ensure that there is a proper deterrent.

Red cards can be downgraded, and violent conduct bans can be given later. But the process is hamstrung by the fact that the referee must have missed the incident on the day. We want to remove this rule, and allow the referee to revisit all the incidents he sees fit.

In addition to the immediate changes, we would like to propose two further ideas, which are not yet ready for this season. We would like to have trials ongoing throughout the season with the intention of using these from the 20/21 season onwards, possibly starting with the 2020 Euros.


Hearing the referees
We would start a trial where refs are mic'd for selected FA Cup games. This follows on from a recent trial in Australia with the referee's communication made available. We would compare this to rugby, whereby referees having a mic helps with the communication of their decisions to the fans. It also helps with dissenting players and those swearing at referees.

Using a microphone means that it becomes much easier to get a clear picture of what is going on, and more importantly, punish players with clear evidence where necessary. This goes hand in hand with the media aspect previously mentioned, where fans will have much more sympathy for the referees if they can understand their point of view.


Technology
Just because this presents a case against the use of VAR, it does not mean that it is anti-technology. Goal-line technology, for example has been an absolute revelation since its introduction. There is no serious opposition its use. This is mainly due to it being a matter of fact, with no subjectivity in the decisions. In addition to continuing with goal line technology, we want to introduce technology to assist linesman with offside decisions, as these tend to be the most controversial.

Hawkeye is to be imminently introduced in the Chinese Super League for offside decisions. This system uses 16 cameras along the side of the pitch to confirm whether a player is or is not offside. There is also the possibility of players wearing chips in their shirts to determine offside decisions. While this would need a tweak in the rules to state that it is the position of the chip, rather than the furthest part of the body that can play the ball - if this system can be implemented then it would be foolproof.

These possibilities would be studied in detail over the next season, with trials where applicable and attempted the be introduced in one year.

[size=43]VAR appears to be here to stay. Cricket, Tennis, NFL: major sports that have welcomed technology into their game and seen decision making improve tenfold. [/size]


[size=43]The Premier League this year could have worked out so differently, so tragically, had the referees in this country continued their erroneous ways. We were only a few points away from Liverpool FC, the red side of Liverpool, with their Liverpudlian fans, winning the Premier League title, their first Premier League title and ending English football as we know it. [/size]


[size=43]Decisions will be highlighted in other aspects of our pitch where VAR has caused concern for the easily agitated. We are presenting two sides of a difficult argument in this pitch. But we can agree that scrutiny has doubled, trebled, since the inclusion of VAR in the English game came closer.[/size]


[size=43]However, the averted tragedy would have been nowhere near as close, nowhere near as stressful, had the Premier League had VAR last season.[/size]


[size=43]Take these moments, notably incorrect decisions, for example:[/size]


Wolves 1-1 Manchester City (25 August) - Willy Boly gave Wolves the lead in the 57th minute with what appeared to be a diving header - but replays showed that it had actually gone in off his hand.


Tottenham 1-2 Liverpool (15 September) - Son Heung-min was brought down in the box deep in added time as Tottenham sought an equaliser, but Michael Oliver waved away his vociferous appeals.


West Ham 1-1 Liverpool (4 February) - The linesman somehow missed a clear offside against James Milner, whose cross into the box was converted by Sadio Mane for the game's opening goal.


[size=43]These are a select three very clear decisions that were missed by the officials. This was on a list of fifteen incorrect and easily solved decisions that affected the title race. Just the title race, not the other 18 teams. [/size]


[size=43]Regardless, there is a swell of public opinion, although one that is of a more vocal group rather than a sustainable or notable majority, against VAR. [/size]


[size=43]Even its supporters would welcome improvements. We would bid to continually and consistently improve VAR, never resting on laurels and always looking for what can be done to make it a more palatable experience for viewers and a more thorough one for the sport. [/size]


[size=43]Some of these changes would ally with the ideas to be enforced were we to move away from using VAR. The following from the previous part of our submission would be carried over and included here too, as good ideas for improvement in the sport are welcomed at all times. See headings:[/size]

• [size=41]Increased retrospective action[/size]
  
• [size=41]Changing the Rules (with the “any contact” handball issue to be immediately remedied and a focus on common sense portrayal of the handball rule)[/size]
  
• [size=41]Media Involvement[/size]
  
• [size=41]Hearing the referees[/size]
  

[size=43]We would also be inclined to trial new technologies, such as Hawkeye-style offside.[/size]


[size=43]However, this area of the project has many other areas we would like to focus on. [/size]


Refereeing improvements


[size=43]The point of VAR is to help officiating in the Premier League. We believe VAR is a great tool for that, but it would be ridiculous to rely upon it solely. Referees need help. We would aim to:[/size]

• [size=41]Introduce stricter punishments for arguing with officials. Our belief is that this will aid the game from top to bottom. Grassroots refereeing will be improved, albeit in the long term, as the influence of footballers on their audience is so strong and clear signs of punishment and the upturn in behaviour would have a trickle down impact. Further to that, we believe this would have short term and long term impact on the quality of referees. Long term would be a bigger talent pool as more people take up reffing. Short term, we feel referees would see an increased confidence as they would not be harangued, harassed and bullied in games. [/size]
  
• [size=41]Intense summer refereeing training, with refs (in each top of the 4 top leagues) to visit training grounds regularly to referee training games. [size=41]We think referees can up their games. If referees are to regularly visit training grounds in pre-season, ensuring that they change consistently so that no relationships are formed. This would also give them a chance to practically explain and show new rules. We also believe that fitness teams should work with referees intensely in the summer months, whilst they will also use video analysis to highlight key issues from the previous season.[/size][/size]
  
• [size=41]Weekly video analysis with Premier League referees. [size=41]It would give referees a huge advantage in their progress during the season if they were to have video analysis sessions each week to look back at key decisions from the round of fixtures before. This will include both positive and negative decisions, to highlight what is working well and what can be improved upon.[/size][/size]
  
• [size=41]Partnerships with other leagues who use VAR to send officials to ref pre-season games. English referees can go to Germany, their referees can come here, and it would give officials a chance to share ideas and skills. [/size]
  

A VAR budget for all Premier League and Championship clubs


[size=43]We feel there is a need for clubs to engage with VAR to make it work the best for their fans. We also feel that the Premier League and the FA have to make this work if they want to bring in this change. A VAR budget can be enforced to ensure this happens. This money is to be funnelled from TV rights and cash reserves in the FA for the Championship. Premier League clubs will still receive all money they normally would, but a legal obligation for a part of this to be used on VAR improvements for fans. As such, any clubs without (or with poor) replay screens are choosing to do so at the expense of their fan experience. Other clubs can look into huge WiFi developments and phone signal, etc. Equally, the FA should be able to loan, with no interest charged, money to any Championship clubs that could not afford improvements necessary, even with the budget. [/size]


Major investments into production


[size=43]VAR can be sped up by improvements to the “production” - the camera work, editing, replays. TV does this at such a speed, as do other sports from cricket and even to wrestling. VAR needs to be invested in, looking at staff who do these things for TV and make sure teams around VAR are looking to achieve such a level of professionalism.[/size]


Clear and obvious errors


[size=43]We propose that VAR is used with that in mind, clear and obvious errors. We are looking for support for referees, so we want to make sure the decisions where we can see why or why not something is seen as a foul, a decision is given or not etc, are not the subject of endless scrutiny. We want this to remain implemented for its initial purpose. The vocabulary has always been “clear error” - let’s make sure that’s what it is. [/size]


Decisions and their implementation


[size=43]Critics of VAR often mention the time that decisions take. Whilst we should look to remember and remind that correct decisions in sport are very important, we should also listen to such concerns and see where VAR can improve. [/size]


[size=43]Taking both this idea and the “clear error” we have spoken about, one key change is to the way offsides are reviewed. [/size]Any offside that takes more than 60[size=43] (should this be shorter?) [/size]seconds to make a decision on is not clear and obvious[size=43]. At this point, the on field decision would remain in play. As such, we would bring in technology that allows assistant referees the ability to press a button on their flag to indicate an offside whilst play continues. With VAR, assistant referees are encouraged not to stop immediately and give an offside, in case it is wrong and they then miss play. This way, they can indicate their decision but continue. [/size]


[size=43]This will also allow [/size]the big screens to indicate that a VAR check will be coming into play.


[size=43]We believe this could be a big factor in helping fans. The screens can be used to show that there is something VAR is to look at. It takes out any moments where fans feel left in the dark, so would be implemented for any decision VAR looks at. [/size]


[size=43]With time being discussed, we also feel [/size]a window for decisions to be made should be brought in. 90 seconds[size=43] is enough for any decision to be reviewed and then implemented. The timer will also be on the screen in the stadium. [/size]


[size=43]Further to this, we would trial, away from games, whether we should create a ruling that incidents within a certain time-frame can be referred to. This would not be done straight away, we think this should be something investigated through the season, to see how it should be done and whether it would be helpful or not. [/size]


The PR game


[size=43]We would look to bring in current pundits, all of whom are former players, to experience VAR. This would be done to help with the analysis that is produced each week, which is huge for public perception. If we can truly bring them into the process, they will be able to discuss it more intelligently on TV. Some pundits are there for their entertaining negativity, the likes of Souness and Keane are examples, and will discuss VAR this season. We cannot let this come from bias or ignorance, so if they are educated and experienced with it (to some extent) then they will understand what is happening by all officials, whether they’re on the field or implementing VAR. [/size]


[size=43]This would be televised, as part of informing the football fans too. They can see what is happening, see what these ex-professionals are learning, and we would be in no way ashamed to have this as a chance to spread a positive propaganda for VAR.[/size]


Current professionals


[size=43]Similar, yet not televised, would happen throughout pre-season for managers and captains from each team. This is going to help in press conferences and also their understanding within games.[/size]


[size=43]The agitation in game, especially at something they are not used to, adds to an air of negativity about VAR. Then this is seen in press conferences, with players and managers feeling in the dark about VAR and frustrated. Who picks up on this? Fans, the public, and this is a chance to cut some of that negativity. [/size]


[size=43]Both these, the ex-pros and current ones, will also give VAR a chance to work with feedback from experienced players. This is not to be taken lightly, they understand the game at an intense level. They would all get a chance to “use” VAR, from decisions made in previous seasons or from abroad, depending on what we feel would be best and produce less bias or be in their memories.[/size]


The cups


[size=43]We believe that it should be used at grounds that have capability in the League Cup as a means of improving VAR technology. It must be understood that no team gains an advantage by having a stadium with VAR in a specific game because both teams can be “punished” or “rewarded” in games that have it. As such, it does not do Manchester United any particular favours in a game against a Cambridge United just because the game is at Old Trafford. [/size]


[size=43]However, the FA Cup would be slightly different. We would look to initially trial temporary VAR at grounds that will not have it. Can it be set up before an FA Cup tie? One game per round would be used in this trial, rather than a wider implementation, whilst it is continued in use at grounds that already have it. There is to be no financial burden on these sides from League One and below. This also helps us to investigate whether we should be training all referees on VAR, which is especially difficult at lower levels, and let’s us trial the system and whether we can do temporary instalments effectively. [/size]



Thank you for your consideration, we look forward to any opportunity to discuss our proposals with you.