Many of world football’s brightest names took the field over the weekend, as the quarter finals of the FIFA men’s World Cup played out. But for many fans, the heroics of the likes of Lionel Messi, Kylian Mbappe and Erling Haaland were overshadowed by the actions of a surprising character: the referee.
Two contentious decisions marred England’s 2-1 win over Norway: one that disallowed a Norwegian goal due to an earlier foul, and another that allowed an English goal despite an apparent earlier collision between the ball and an overhead cable . Similarly, Argentina’s victory over Switzerland never looked in doubt once the ref issued a game-ending second yellow card to Swiss forward Breel Embolo.
At the heart of all three controversial calls were technologies designed to do away with controversial calls. FIFA pointed to the contact-detecting “snicko” device attached to the ball in allowing England’s goal, and the other two decisions hinged on the little-loved Video Assistant Referee or VAR, an off-field panel of officials able to watch replays and advise the on-field referee.
These were just the latest in a string of contentious VAR calls at this World Cup . So why has a high-tech system designed to reduce unfairness and error in refereeing ended up sparking more of the very controversies it was supposed to put to bed?
Facts are important – but so is judgement
Football is a fast-paced and complex sport, its rules developed over more than 160 years.
Technology can help referees resolve some factual questions, such as whether the ball has crossed the goal line, or which player touched the ball last before it went out of play.
However, many decisions involving fouls, penalty kicks and handballs come down to questions of judgement and how to apply the rules. Often even the best-informed experts will disagree about the right decision.
Some disputes relate to margins of millimetres revealed by replays; others where even VAR has appeared to miss a clear foul ; and others where a technically correct decision nevertheless feels unjust.
VAR can reproduce evidence to revisit decisions and review them. On paper, this should help alleviate the errors.
However, despite reviews now having more evidence to work with, the actual decision-making involved is regarded by many as highly inconsistent .
In part this is because the on-field referee has discretion over how strictly to enforce certain rules, such as how much contact between players may count as a foul. According to Pierluigi Collina, FIFA’s head of referees, VAR has to adjust to the way the match is officiated. If the referee allows strong contact in the field, VAR should adjust accordingly, and finding a sweet spot for consistency is challenging.
The core issues remain
More technology and more intervention are not likely to resolve some of the core issues.
A February match between Juventus and Inter Milan in Italy’s Serie A illustrates the problem. A Juventus player made minimal contact with an Inter player, who exaggerated the contact and fell over.
The referee issued a yellow card – given for a significant foul – to the Juventus player. It was the player’s second yellow card, which meant he was sent off the field for the rest of the match.
A perfect chance for a VAR review to set the record straight, you might think. However, VAR’s rules prevented it being used to intervene in second-yellow-card situations.
When the rule was subsequently changed, not everyone was happy – including the Italian league’s head of referees Gianluca Rocchi, who warned against the “greater use of technology”. At the same time, he said, such incidents didn’t occur when “the players focused on playing football and therefore made life easier for the referee”.
More technology, more demands
Even when the system does work, it may not increase fans’ trust in the system.
In a World Cup match in June between Qatar and Switzerland, a crucial penalty kick decision appeared to hinge on an offside call , which is precisely the kind of thing VAR is meant for. Typically, after a VAR review, an infographic detailing the result is shown – but in this case nothing was shown and the penalty kick proceeded.
Fans and commentators were unhappy with the lack of information, saying it led to distrust in the technology. FIFA later stated the VAR review was carried out successfully, but a technical issue had prevented the infographic being shown.
So even when justice is done, it must also be seen to be done. The more advanced the technology becomes, the more the margin for error will shrink and the more audiences will demand transparency – and at the same time, the opportunities for failure will only increase.
Even when the technology works, it can turn football into a game of millimetres in cases where the position of a player’s toes may determine a game-changing offside call.
This method may seem factual and objective, but it risks taking out the very emotion that draws fans to the game. What’s more, it presupposes the measurements are perfectly precise and accurate, with no errors.
Problems far beyond the pitch
The VAR system has also seen trouble off the field. One VAR referee was caught watching betting sites on the job during a game. Another was suspended for match-fixing . A refereeing administrator has been investigated for unduly influencing VAR reviews .
And at an altitude way above the field, FIFA itself has been criticised for suspending a ban against a US player without a clear explanation, and after an intervention from US President Donald Trump. This may have opened the door to broader political interference, and we have already seen other countries ask for similar treatment .
Perhaps it was futile to hope a technical system could end fundamentally human disputes over a sport that has always been more art than science.
Meanwhile, millions of dollars have been invested in the technology and operations of VAR. Now it means errors come with a huge bill attached, which makes them less acceptable. And that same investment means VAR is very likely here to stay – whether we like it or not.
