The trouble with VAR

I just came across this interesting video from Youtuber Dagnal Diagonal, which provides a pretty good survey of some of the most egregious examples of VAR screw-ups over the last couple of seasons - and presents some suggestions for improvement. (Strangely, although it's invariably a major focus of discussion on TV highlights shows, I haven't seen very much commentary on this issue anywhere online.)

Dagnal's main points are:

1)  The overall quality of officiating needs to improve. And in particular, referees need to focus more carefully on getting their initial decision right. There does seem to be a psychological reliance - perhaps unconscious! - on the presence of VAR being able to get them out of trouble, which may lead to them making hasty or over-cautious - or, sometimes, over-bold - calls at first instance. (I suspect, in particular, that they will often give penalties a little more easily, with the 'safety net' of thinking that VAR can overrule them, or suggest a second look, if they've misread the incident. And that they'll often be hesitant to give a red card for a bad tackle, knowing that VAR will take a closer look.)

2) The scope of VAR responsibilities needs to be expanded - particularly with 'second yellow', or potential 'second yellow' incidents (which are just the same in game impact as a straight red card, so it's absurd that they should be treated differently under the VAR protocols).

3)  Refs need to get over the prejudice that there's an overwhelming expectation they ought to change their original decision if they're directed to the pitch-side TV monitor (easier said than done!). Dagnal suggests it might help if they're allowed an additional category of response, as in pitch-side reviews in American football, where an initial call can be simply 'not overruled' - instead of actively confirmed - if the TV playbacks are not readily able to provide conclusive evidence one way or the other.

I rather feel that this last suggestion of his really goes to another issue: the frequent fallibility or inconclusiveness of the available TV coverage of an incident. Encouraging referees to be more confident in their original decision, and not put under any weight of expectation as to what conclusion they should reach when sent for a second look at an incident, is more a matter of training. 

And I think stricter guidelines on the way that the on-pitch and off-pitch officials communicate with each other are essential too. They should not be getting into any extended conversations; the VAR official should not be giving any indication of what he thinks happened. There should be a set list of formulaic 'instructions', giving the reason for the suggested review, the particular event or events that need to be looked at - but without any extended detail, which might be prejudicial. And the word 'possible' should always be included, to emphasise that the question is entirely OPEN for the referee: 'Possible contact on ball by tackling player', 'Possible handball by goalscorer', 'Possible holding by x and y', 'Possible obstruction of goalkeeper's sightline by z' - that's ALL the VAR official should ever be saying.

And there's a lot of scope for improvement in the technical side of things too (something that Dagnal omits to comment on in his video). We often see a referee apparently only being shown a slow-motion or freeze-frame picture on the monitor (which, again, tends to be prejudicial), or only being shown one or two camera angles of the incident, when more - and much better ones - do exist. WHY???  This is the kind of staggering incompetence in the implementation of the system that they need to stamp out, if they are to build any public confidence in the operation of VAR.

Let us hope we'll see better things in this area next season. But I'm not at all confident we will.