All of that NEEDS TO STOP.
I've spoken on what I see as the major problems with VAR before, but here's a further expansion. This is what I'd like to see happen to improve the situation:
1) Acknowledge that the current implementation of the system is INADEQUATE, and suspend it until a raft of improvements can be worked out - and extensively practised and tested, before implementation (that plainly didn't happen - not sufficiently - before the original launch of the system). A drastic proposal, I know. But that's how bad things have got with this bloody mess. I really think we need a break from it.
2) Tidy up the rules of the game, for greater clarity and simplicity. A lot of the problem with VAR decisions derives from the over-complicated, unclear and often just inept wording of some of the key rules. No-one - referees included! - fully understands any more the current, extensive definitions of such basic offences as 'handball' and 'offside',... or how to deal with the rapidly escalating problem of 'wrestling' in the penalty area at set-pieces, etc. [I hate to say this, but they really need to get some lawyers involved in a review of this. They're not good for much, but they do understand the importance of clarity in drafting rules.]
3) Greatly improve the speed of assembling the appropriate video clips for playback. A lot of the problems with the excessive amount of time taken to reach decisions seems to arise from the cumbersomeness of the playback technology - or the officials' lack of expertise in using it. It really should take the technical team a matter of only seconds to cue up and conduct an initial review of all the relevant views of an incident (and to select the one or two most relevant for detailed review, and to potentially show to the on-pitch referee). But it seems to be almost invariably taking much, much longer than that; and sometimes, it's just not happening - the best or most relevant views are not presented to the referee at all! (But that, I think, should be the next point.)
4) Show only the best, most appropriate views of the incident, and initially at full speed. So often recently, we've seen referees understandably confused by being shown a camera-angle that doesn't give a clear view of the incident. Often, also, just a short section of the clip seems to be repeatedly replayed, in a rather juddery fashion - which is often likely to be prejudicial, or just unhelpful. Similarly, showing freeze-frame or slow-motion views should only follow on from a 'normal speed' review, if it seems to be really needed. In most instances, there seems to be one camera-angle that shows an obviously 'best' - clear, close-up - view of the incident; only in rare cases, should a second - and, very rarely, perhaps a third - view be needed. Yet often we seem to see the poor ref not being shown the 'best' view at all (it only shows up later on the TV post-mortem discussion!), or only after wasting 30 seconds or more on looking at a bunch of other inconclusive camera-angles first. Showing more distant views in which key elements of the incident are unlikely to be clearly visible, is unhelpful, pointless. Showing still images or a slow-motion re-run, before or instead of a normal-speed viewing, or chopping quickly between full-speed and slowed-down replays, is likely to be confusing and often prejudicial. No thought appears to have been given to the psychology of how video playback may be interpreted, and misinterpreted; there appear to be no clear guidelines in place, no consistent approach followed as to what kind of video replay is presented to the referee for a pitchside review.
5) Establish rigid protocols for communication between VAR and the referee. I spoke on this at some length in that earlier post I mentioned above, but, even more than the inept use of video playback, communication from the VAR team runs the risk of being extremely prejudicial to the referee's thinking and ultimate decision on an issue. And that needs to be completely avoided. 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.
6) Abandon the 'clear and obvious' threshold for VAR intervention. It is an obvious nonsense, and often ignored anyway. There are two massive problems with it: i) The VAR team is often unduly hesitant to intervene, because it might be seen as undermining or humiliating their on-pitch colleague; ii) With the threshold for recommending a pitchside 'second look' set so extravagantly high, referees are inevitably prejudiced into thinking that their initial decision must have been wrong (in effect, the decision is being made by VAR here; a referee almost never has the courage to uphold his original call after being sent for a pitchside review).
7) Allow VAR to determine some calls directly - to save time. The 'clear and obvious' idea might be usefully retained in allowing a certain category of incidents to be adjudicated directly by VAR. In many instances where a player apparently goes down under a challenge, it is in fact quite clear that the defending player had got a touch on the ball, or had not touched the attacking player at all - and there is no subjective element to the decision, it's obviously not a foul. Most handball decisions - if the rule were more sensibly framed* - ought to be similarly uncontentious. If the referee has made an error in such clearcut cases, I think VAR should be able to immediately overrule him.
8) Extend VAR's remit in a few key areas. While I'd rather have VAR involved as little as possible, it is an obvious lunacy in the present system that only straight red cards are reconsidered by VAR, and second yellow offences (which have exactly the same game impact) are not. In fact, I feel there's a case for making all serious fouls reviewable by VAR - at least in cases where it is so unfathomable that the referee did not award a yellow card, it must be assumed that he did not properly see the incident. The correct awarding of corners and throw-ins can also have a crucial impact, and I see no reason why VAR should not be involved here as well. If the system were working smoothly, such decisions should take only seconds (and, as in the point above, VAR should be able to make these calls directly).
9) The new 'semi-automated' offside decisions need to be much quicker, and have clearer graphics. Sometimes, we don't seem to get shown the justificatory graphic for a contentious offside call on our TV coverage at all - or not until several minutes later. Almost always, they seem to take at least a minute or two to appear, which is far too much - and is causing further intolerable delays in the flow of the game. If the CG rendering really takes this long, then the system is not currently fit for use; we need to be able to see the justification for these decisions within a few seconds. Also, these graphics are not presenting the situation clearly: they seem to show only one 'line' for the point of a player's body nearest to the goal-line, extended across the whole width of the pitch, parallel to the goal-line; but we really need to see two, to clearly show the distance between the nearest points of the attacker's body and of the relevant last defender's. In close calls, parallax and the lack of depth perception in the CG images make it completely impossible to judge which player is nearer to the goal-line. (And in some instances, there may also be a question as to why they have chosen to draw the 'line' on one part of the body rather than another. But for me, the true problem here lies in the absurd fiction that we can - or should even try to - determine offside calls on such fine margins. **)
10) Referees should be spared - for now - from having to explain their decisions after review. It eats up even more precious time. It adds further pressure on them. And, currently, it is only likely to exacerbate rather than soothe controversy. Until some of these other problems above are addressed, these referees' 'explanations' are likely to be more confusing and annoying than anything else. While the rules are so over-complicated and badly framed, it is going to be difficult for referees to concisely or accurately summarise the key elements in their decision; and even if they do, it's often not going to be readily comprehensible to the spectators. I was mightily vexed at the weekend by Sam Barrott's burbling about 'a sustained pull' on Diallo leading to the award of Manchester's life-saving (and unjust, even if arguably correct) late penalty on Saturday: that only goes to the issue of whether it was a 'foul' (there was no argument about that), but the crucial thing to be determined was where that foul occurred, inside or outside the box; and by failing to address that, Barrott implied that he hadn't even considered it.... and thus had made an incorrect decision (or made his decision on incorrect grounds, at least).
And finally, the REALLY BIG ONE.....
11) VAR decisions should be strictly time-limited. VAR should certainly aim to be able to render a decision in no more than 15 seconds. And while we might allow them a bit longer in exceptional circumstances, I think they ought to be 'timed out' at well under a minute, ideally only 30 or 40 seconds. If they can't reach a conclusion in that time, they should just admit they are 'Unable to render a prompt decision' and let the incident go - let it rest with the on-pitch officials' original call. We simply can't have these minutes-long interruptions ruining our enjoyment of the games every week (and messing up the TV scheduling: some matches are now running so long that there's almost no time for post-game discussion before the next kick-off - some pundits might be losing their jobs, and I'm sure we don't want that!). Sometimes there are technical hold-ups with identifying the correct portions of video for playback. Sometimes, perhaps, the technical crew are just inept in sorting that out. Someimes, an incident becomes inordinately complicated, with several side issues also seeming to warrant review. Sometimes, none of the camera angles give a really definitive view of a crucial element of the action. When these things happen, we should accept that VAR is unable to help us in this instance. I would far rather suffer a few more wrong decisions than put up with these constant interruptions to the games.
And I'm not convinced that we'd actually get more wrong decisions if we relied solely - or far more - on the on-pitch referees; because there are still a huge number of mistakes happening with VAR in place; a huge number, in fact, that are happening because VAR is in place. (And I don't know if anyone has attempted to do some sort of study on this yet, but I am convinced that the standard of on-pitch refereeing has declined because of VAR. Referees are feeling under intolerable additional pressure; but they're also feeling, in some situations, that it will be OK for them to make an over-harsh or over-cautious call because their VAR colleagues can rescue them if it looks really bad on TV.)
* For handballs, on the position of the arm, I would say that the only things relevant are if the arm is close in front of the body, such that the ball would have hit the body as well; or the arm is tight to the side of the body, so that it effectively forms part of the body. There is absolutely no need to bother with all this twaddle about 'making the body unnaturally larger', or the 'natural position of the arm'.
If the ball is fired at the defender at speed, from very close range, such that he has no reasonable opportunity to respond; or, if the ball deflects on to a defender's arm from another part of his body, or bounces on to his arm from close-range in a crowded penalty area, and he could not reasonably have seen or anticipated that the ball would come to him at that angle,.... in cases like that, then the position of the arm should not matter: the defender simply ought not to be culpable.
However, I would institute a 'strict liability' rule for instances where a ball striking a defender's arm (so long as not close in front of the body, or tight at the side - as explained above) decisively deflects it when it is goal-bound. The position of the arm, proximity to the ball, speed at which the ball is driven towards him - all irrelevant in such a case. The only thing that matters is the direction of the ball and the consequence of the contact.
Questions of 'intent' should only be relevant to punishment. Where a handball appears to be blatant and deliberate, it should usually be only a yellow-card offence if the ball is not goal-bound (potentially still a 'denial of a goalscoring opportunity' red card, though that's only likely to occur in incidents outside the penalty area), and a red-card offence if the ball is goal-bound. Simple enough.
** I have always felt that a certain amount of latitude should be allowed in ruling on offside incidents. In 'the good old days', the benefit of the doubt was always given to the attacking player - if it was 'too close to call', he was considered onside. That was an eminently sensible provision, and I'd like to see it restored.
And to make both the linesman's and the 'automated review' decisions easier - and more likely to accord with each other - I'd propose that only the torso ought to be considered relevant, not the toes or the upper arm or the tip of the nose, as we so often see now. In fact, I'd make it simpler still: only the pelvis should be considered relevant. This is the centre-of-gravity and a clear determinant of the player's effective position on the pitch. And most player's pelvises are at approximately the same height above the turf, so it's rather simpler to judge where they are in relation to each other. (And, I suggest, there would be a small additional improvement in fairness - in those rare situations where a defending playing is lying on the ground, and perhaps parallel to the touchline, he won't be playing opponents onside by the full length of his body...) Even in very tight situations, it's usually possible to determine accurately with the naked eye whether one player's rear-most hip is clearly further forward than another's fore-most hip. And that's what we need for a practicable offside law.
And if it's really, really tight, if a wrinkle on the player's shorts might be deciding whether he's 'touching' the level of the last defender, or clearly in front of it,..... then he should get the benefit of the doubt and be deemed onside. I'd always find in the attacker's favour unless there are at least a couple of inches of clear daylight between his hips and the last defender's.
Oh, what a wonderful world that would be.....
[Apparently, FIFA have been 'considering' a change to the offside rule along these lines - the whole of the attacker's body needing to be closer to the byline than the whole of the relevant 'last defender's' body, in order to be 'offside' - for a while now; but Arsene Wenger said last May that he didn't think it was likely to be approved for implementation for at least another year. With a bit of luck, it will be part of the usual raft of 'trial innovations' introduced for next year's World Cup. Although this definition should allow more leeway to attackers, and much easier decision-making, I am concerned that it still suffers from the fundamental taint of supposedly attainable 'perfection' in 'drawing the line', and some decisions could still potentially be given on a margin of less than a millimetre. I'd really like to see 'benefit of the doubt' and 'margin of error' principles reintroduced into the application of this rule, to try to avoid that.]
