Today, technology permeates through early all aspects of English football. Whether it’s Jamie Carragher grappling with a labyrinthine video replay interface on Monday Night Football, the all-pervasiveness of myriad XG algorithms, or the wearable performance-tracking technology donned by Premier League players and subsequently splashed all over Instagram – wherever you look, the robots are occupying Albion.
Now, Video Assistant Referees join the list. In terms of tangible impact on the game itself, it will surely prove the most significant addition. VAR made its Premier League debut during the opening round of fixtures; against Leicester, Wolves had what would have been a winner chalked off for handball, while Manchester City and West Ham United fans comically took it in turns to chant ‘V-A-R, V-A-R’ as the technology made decisions for and against the both of them. The novelty of a new feature of the sport has always inspired hilarity in English fans, even when something as innocuous as the vanishing spray was used for the first time in the 2014 Community Shield there were ironic cheers and booming laughter from both sets of supporters. But it’s only when the novel becomes the norm that we have the opportunity to look back and see if the game is in a better position than it was before…
Since the opening weekend, we’ve seen history repeat itself as Manchester City were denied a later winner against Spurs by the new technology, just as they were in last season’s sensational Champions League quarter-final. But VAR giveth and VAR taketh away – Spurs were themselves were denied the following weekend when the video replay officials dismissed what looked like a blatant foul on Harry Kane during his side’s 1-0 defeat at home to Newcastle. Perhaps the most infuriating use of the technology, however, came when officials spent nearly 3 minutes deliberating whether to discount Ruben Rúben Neves’s wonder strike against Manchester United. Even after the goal was awarded, the Molineux faithful made their feelings clear: ‘f**k VAR’, they sang in unison.
The English don’t tend to like change. Traditionalism is engrained into our collective psyche; it’s the reason we’ve only just decided to join the rest of Europe in playing possession-based football, it’s the reason we never wanted the Euro. Perhaps this is why we’re the last of the five major European leagues to introduce VAR. Spain, Italy, France and Germany have all been getting used to the technology for at least a season now, longer in the cases of Serie A and the Bundesliga. But, and this seems the more likely explanation, it’s because we love a good moan, and VAR takes away a great deal of our fuel for that. In theory then, VAR and the Premier League should go together like orange juice and toothpaste.
VAR, properly applied and working in correlation with a more clearly-defined set of laws – a set of laws which we admittedly don’t yet have – effectively eliminates controversy in football, on the pitch at least. There will be drama, of course, but no controversy – how could there be? And without controversy, we can only moan about that which is within our control.
“GOODNESS ME, THEY’VE CHANGED THEIR MINDS NOW” – Jonathan Pearce’s reaction to the then-new goal-line technology in the France Vs. Honduras game at the 2014 World Cup was both a hilarious misunderstanding and emblematic of his nation’s need for controversy, for drama and, above all, a reason to whinge. Indeed, many of English international football’s defining moments are those in which we’ve supposedly been dealt a bad hand: Lampard’s goal that wasn’t, all those penalty shoot outs, the Hand of God; we love winning, but if we can’t win then we’d rather lose unjustly – because of a dubious refereeing decision or an undeserved red card. For a famously reserved nation of people, we revel in controversy; we just don’t want to admit it.
But to say you appreciate or enjoy such controversy is taboo, an apparent indicator that you’re not thinking within the ‘correct’ moral framework – that this attitude is in some way ‘unsporting.’ We saw the venom in this accusation during ‘Spygate’ last season; it’s one of the worst things you can be labeled as in the English game. These apparent ‘sporting’ principles have lead pundits to suggest that introducing VAR is the ‘right thing to do,’ a view which implies the existence of some sort of meta-ethical code that anyone involved in the game is duty-bound to respect.
This raises the question of what constitutes our morality /within/ the sport, and there is a clear dichotomy in peoples’ outlooks. Should football be a pure meritocracy, based solely on skill and judged through a scientific lens? Or is it about the spectacle, the theatre? The latter of these views seems to represent football as a microcosm of life, where injustices are reflected in sport. The former places sport on a pedestal, something which we can, and therefore should, actively separate from the raw deal which life hands us. And, as much as pundits might like to tell you otherwise, there’s no right or wrong answer between these views.
Ultimately, something as indifferent and calculated as VAR has given rise to a deeply philosophical debate about why we consider football worth our time. There’s a couple of lazy arguments against VAR; the fact that it interferes with the human element of the game is one. After all, no one ever complains about the headsets the officials use to communicate with one another over the roar of the crowd, do they? There’s also the fact that many feel football should be the same in the parks as it is in the Premier League (again, the headset argument applies). But that it has the capacity to starve the game of controversy, one of the fundamental pillars of the game throughout its 150+ year history, is a legitimate grievance and ought to be seen as such. If you like controversy, don’t be ashamed to say it with your chest.
Football’s governing bodies are notoriously short-sighted. While technology’s influence over the game continues to grow exponentially, they must ensure fans’ voices are heard – at the end of the day, it’s played for /us/ and not in pursuit of some abstract notion of sporting justice. There are good arguments on both sides of the debate, but those who oppose VAR shouldn’t simply be dismissed as Luddites – that much, at least, should be clear and obvious.
Adam Williams - Portfolio 