A Step Too VAR? How Video Technology Can Perpetuate Further Injustice

It was an historic moment. Leicester’s Kelechi Iheanacho had the ball in the back of the net, and wheeled away in celebration only to find the flag raised. On any other day, this would have dashed his hopes of doubling The Foxes’ lead and putting the FA Cup third-round replay against Fleetwood to bed. Not on this occasion: this was a fixture in which the ‘video assistant referee’ was being trialled, and Mike Jones duly informed on-field official Jon Moss that the goal should stand. Cue celebrations from Iheanacho, but also from most of the wider footballing community.

Were these celebrations premature? Certainly Iheanacho’s were not – he and his teammates were left standing around while Mike Jones pondered the tight call, and it was not until after the referee gave the signal that muted hugs and high-fives ensued. What of the jubilation further afield, where this intervention of VAR was lauded as the ushering-in of a shining new era for football? Unfortunately, those piling on the superlatives do not appear to have fully considered the consequences of the system. Some standard criticisms are well-rehearsed: amongst these is scepticism as to how well games will flow when they are prone to be interrupted by referrals, and it has to be said that the working of the technology in this instance did nothing to alleviate those concerns. However, it is a less talked-about consequence of the technology that provides the real sticking point.

Here is the issue. Imagine, for a moment, that Kelechi Iheanacho did not take on the early shot after running off the back of his marker, but instead opted to control the ball and work an even better shooting position by looking to go around the goalkeeper. By this time, the referee would have responded to his assistant’s flag and brought back proceedings – at this point, VAR is of no assistance. Unless the ball has actually been put in the back of the net only to be (initially) ruled out for offside, an assessment of the linesman’s call is out of the question: to take the scenario where Iheanacho looks to round the keeper, the referee can hardly order all of the players to return to the exact positions they were in at the point play was stopped in order to see how the passage would pan out. Not knowing for sure that a goal would have been scored, even though the finish would surely have been a formality, the officials cannot award the goal even once the incorrectness of the offside call has been established. Taking the keeper out of the equation is just as valid as the deft chip the Nigerian actually opted for, and would almost certainly have resulted in the same outcome, but this is disregarded under VAR – one gets the benefit of the technology, and the other does not.

There are two potential responses to this problem: one looks to dismiss it, the other to solve it. The solution that might be proposed is a modification of the situations in which the referee blows his whistle. Indeed, Graham Poll alluded to this as a consideration when giving his opinions in the immediate aftermath of the goal being awarded – the suggestion was that in his position as a referee in a match including VAR, John Moss should have made sure he delayed his blowing of the whistle until after it had become clear whether or not Iheanacho would score. In this way, the game would never be stopped prematurely on the basis of an incorrect decision from an assistant referee, and where the decision did turn out to be correct the ‘goal’ could be chalked off without much difficulty. However, neat as this sounds, it does not solve the problem. Bearing in mind that the vast majority of offside decisions are correct, how long does the referee let an attack run for before he acknowledges the flag? What even constitutes an ‘attack’ which he should let run in the first place? In 2013/14, Liverpool travelled to The Etihad to take on Manchester City. They took an early lead, and looked to have carved out a great opportunity to double it when Raheem Sterling was put clean through on the counter. Such was the high line of the hosts, this occurred on the halfway line: the offside flag was erroneously raised. There is no obvious answer as to what a referee assisted by VAR should have done in this scenario; on one hand Sterling was clean through and the play should have been allowed to unfold, with the offside call left for assessment afterwards, but on the other hand receipt of the ball on the halfway line could hardly be said to constitute an attack. Had Sterling been offside, as the linesman believed, allowing the move to continue would have meant allowing an entirely pointless break half the length of the pitch. There are no workable criteria on which to judge when and for how long the referee delays acknowledgment of an assistant’s flag, and this solution duly fails.

With no solution, proponents of the technology have to look to simply dismiss the issue that is posed by the possible variation in circumstances surrounding offside calls. The principal line of argument is that, while some would-be goals will inevitably still be disallowed, VAR nonetheless reduces injustice by correcting the situations where a goal immediately follows a stray offside flag and consequently lowering the total number of wrongly disallowed goals. It would be churlish to suggest that this argument is completely without merit. Certainly, it is at least arguable that a scenario where some wrong offside calls are corrected is preferable to one where none of them can be changed. However, this is not as inevitable a conclusion as it sounds. The current situation, though it produces immense frustration on a fairly regular basis, can at least say that it makes all teams and all match events equally susceptible to suffering unfairness by way of refereeing error. This equality is, perversely, a form of fairness: it acknowledges human error as an inescapable part of the game, and ensures that these errors are not channelled into a few specific areas. Video technology, meanwhile, produces a further category of unfairness by only functioning to correct errors of a particular type. It has been shown that this flaw is inherent – were there an effective way for VAR to eradicate all refereeing mistakes, there would of course be no controversy. Given this, it has to be asked whether it is a welcome addition to the game. A match where one valid goal is mistakenly flagged for offside and another stands is a cause of great consternation to fans; a situation whereby one mistaken call was corrected and another was left to stand would surely provoke even more outrage.

This is not a fatal blow to the case for video technology. There are undoubted benefits of VAR, and if it was to be brought in on a more permanent basis then fans and players alike would no doubt adapt to it before long. However, the problem of offside goals at least gives cause for consideration: there is a danger of getting swept away on the wave of hype generated by Iheanacho’s goal, when really it showcased the flaws with video assistants as much as the advantages. 

Fleetwood Town 0-5 Liverpool: Reds Turn On The Style

In the second fixture of their pre-season preparations, Liverpool travelled to Fleetwood’s Highbury ground. As in the Tranmere match, Klopp elected to play two entirely different sets of players in each half – the opening forty-five minutes was not too far away from a full-strength side minus those still away following international duty, while the second period saw an opportunity handed to more of the young players. Both impressed, but interestingly it was the younger side that scored the bulk of the goals – four of Liverpool’s five were notched in an extremely strong second half performance.

The biggest positive of the first half was undoubtedly Marko Grujic. He was unable to feature in the Tranmere game due to bizarre work permit regulations that required him to leave and then re-enter the country, and he seemed determined to make up for lost time. He certainly managed to impress Klopp and the fans: he played some lovely passes, and looked impossible to dispossess. He also showed some quick feet, winning a penalty early on: in a passage of play that highlighted some of his best attributes, he effortlessly shrugged his man off before bursting forward and comprehensively beating the defender with a series of step-overs. Ings missed the subsequent spot kick, but Grujic soon rectified the situation – just minutes later he rifled one in following some nice play down the left by Sadio Mane. Nobody really knows exactly what squad role Klopp envisages for Grujic this season, and it would be foolish to read too much into a pre-season game, but the Serbian is certainly inserting himself at least into the first team picture.

Grujic aside, it was a fairly uninspiring first half. There was nothing specifically wrong with it – the general style of play was actually encouraging, with everyone looking to string together quick, incisive passes. However, nobody really shone: Mane was probably the best after Grujic, but even he was guilty of some poor decision-making in places. Particularly concerning was the apparent impotence of the right hand side; Markovic has purportedly been given pre-season to try and force his way into Klopp’s plans, but as in the Tranmere game he failed to impress. Almost all attacks went through Mane on the left – considering Markovic is supposed to be a direct winger who likes to cut inside and make things happen, this was particularly disappointing. Admittedly Mane was assisted by the ever-marauding Moreno whereas Markovic had Flanagan, but he would nevertheless certainly have liked to have had a bigger influence on proceedings.

This lacklustre showing was thrown into sharp relief by the performance of youngster Ryan Kent in the second half. He played exceptionally well, demonstrating awareness beyond his years. He was rewarded for this with two assists: both were clever square balls from situations where many wingers would simply have lashed the ball at the near post. As well as the assists, he also showed some lovely skill to beat his man on a couple of occasions – with Klopp known for bringing young talents through to the first team, Markovic will be well aware that he will have to step up to ensure he remains higher up the pecking order than Kent. He was one of many who impressed: academy prospect Woodburn scored one goal and created another in an excellent performance, whilst sole regular first-teamer Roberto Firmino bagged a poacher’s brace. It was interesting that Klopp once again elected to play Firmino in the number nine role: with Sturridge, Origi and Ings all occupying that position it is hard to see him getting many minutes up top during the season, but he was undeniably impressive there in this fixture. There was a real clinical edge to the second half performance – even Lucas managed to get on the scoresheet! Transferring this ruthlessness into the Premier League season is going to be a key element of any success in the forthcoming campaign: Klopp got Liverpool creating chances aplenty last season, but not taking them with sufficient consistency.

The absence of a lot of regular first team players makes it particularly hard to draw any meaningful conclusions from this game, but if nothing else it is fair to say that Liverpool’s future looks bright. Marko Grujic looks capable of developing into a player that could control our midfield for years to come – the prospect of him playing alongside Can, both with their potential fulfilled, is a mouth-watering one. Add to this the likes of Brannagan, Kent, Woodburn, Ejaria and potentially Ilori, and the club looks in very good shape; it would be naïve to think that all of these players will one day make the first team, but even those who don’t will surely go on to fetch decent sums of money for us. Sergi Canos was in a similar bracket to the aforementioned crop of youngsters: he has just departed to Norwich for a fee which could rise to close to five million pounds, giving an indication of how valuable these talents are as assets. For the time being, however, they remain very much a part of Liverpool Football Club – a club that will undoubtedly be content with how pre-season has gone so far.
-James Martin
Follow me on Twitter @JamesMartin013