VAR Highs & Lows

Throughout the World Cup, two things have been a source of controversy more than any other.  VAR and the automated offside rule.  Both could definitely use some tweaking, for sure, and I'm sure that will be done in time for the 2030 World Cup.  And I think the problems with VAR come down to the same thing.  Overuse.  VAR officials are involving themselves in the game too much.  And when they do, issues arise.

That's the most obvious thing about pretty much every VAR decision that's been made at this World Cup.  I can only think of one exception where the referee went to VAR and stood by his original call.  Otherwise, they've essentially let VAR make the call for them.  Once you see the ref go to the monitor and Dr. Joe or Mark Clattenburg join the broadcast, whatever was called on the field is going to be overturned.  Even though the point of VAR is to correct "clear and obvious errors," which sometimes is exactly not what VAR is checking.

There are a few examples where VAR intervention had direct impact on the game.  The most obvious was Folarin Balogun's red card in the Round of 32 against Bosnia.  The referee didn't even call a foul on the field.  He only went to the monitor after the VAR official used slow-motion and freeze frame replays to see that Balogun had stepped on the Bosnian defender's leg, which can be a red card offense.  However, it's also in the rules that you're not supposed to use slo-mo and freeze frames to make VAR decisions unless it's for a hand ball. 

That didn't happen in Balogun's case.  The referee didn't call it a foul on the field for a reason.  Not only was it a soccer play, Balogun had nowhere else to put his foot.  Pretty much everyone agreed that the red card wasn't deserved.  (The controversy surrounding it being overturned is a whole separate issue.)  And it was clearly a case of VAR intervening where it probably shouldn't have.  That's not the purpose of VAR.

Another red card that was controversially given due to VAR came in the Argentina-Switzerland quarterfinal.  Although, in this case, it was because VAR was being used correctly.  "Mistaken identity" is one of the criteria where VAR intervention is warranted.  We saw it early in the tournament when Tim Ream was given a yellow card against Paraguay, but VAR found that Ream hadn't made contact with the Paraguayan player, so Ream's yellow card was reversed and the Paraguayan player was booked for simulation instead.

It was the exact same situation in Argentina-Switzerland.  The Argentinian player was issued a yellow card for a hard foul, but VAR noticed it wasn't actually a foul.  If no card had been given on the field, they could've just reversed the free kick.  However, since a card was given, it had to go to the Swiss player instead for simulation.  Unfortunately, he was already sitting on a yellow card, which meant it was his second yellow and the referee had no choice but to issue a red.  Harsh?  Absolutely.  But it also would've been harsh for the Argentinian player to be stuck with a yellow card he didn't earn.  So, the intervention led to the right result.  It only became an issue because it was a second-yellow-turned-red.

Argentina obviously benefitted from that call (which was correct).  A common frustration among fans (especially those of other teams) is that Argentina seems to benefit from a lot of officiating decisions (both called and not called, both on the field and via VAR).  It's the same "FIFA wants Messi to win" conspiracy theory that NFL fans constantly make about the Chiefs.  However, in Argentina's game against Egypt, Argentina was definitely the beneficiary of another questionable VAR intervention.

Egypt had a 1-0 lead when they went down and scored a brilliant second goal.  The goal was waved off, though.  Why?  Because of a foul on the other side of the field 15 seconds earlier that didn't involve any of the players who factored in the goal.  So, instead of the score being 2-0 Egypt, it was still 1-0 and Argentina had a free kick in their offensive zone.  There was no need for the VAR official to intervene there, but they did anyway.  And they took away a goal because of it.

One of the most frustrating things about VAR, too, is how certain things can go to replay and others can't.  Corner kicks and goal kicks are perhaps the most confusing element of this rule.  VAR can overturn a corner kick and turn it into a goal kick, but not the other way around.  Why not?  It's incredibly stupid that you can do one and not the other.  Especially since it's literally the exact same technology.  If you can use VAR to say it actually went off the offense and should be a goal kick, why can't you use the same replays to see that the goalie was actually the last one to touch it and it should've been a corner instead?  It makes absolutely no sense!

If they're not going to change that part of the rule (which they should, since it's such an obvious and easily correctable flaw in the system), officials should just start pointing to the corner spot every time they're unsure.  That way, it at least can be reviewed.  If he got it right, great.  If not, VAR can reverse it.  That's a lot better than awarding a goal kick that should've been a corner and no one being able to do anything about it.

With offside, the confusion stems from what exactly constitutes offside and what doesn't.  It should be straightforward, but it isn't.  There was one game (I think it was Croatia-Portugal) where a goal was taken off the board because they found the ball hadn't touched the defender's head, which put the Croatian player offside.  If it had grazed his head, though, he wouldn't have been off and the goal would've counted.  What?!  How would that have made any difference whatsoever?  The referee didn't think it did.  That's why he called it a goal on the field.

Likewise, the precision by which the automated offside makes its determination might be a bit too precise.  It's a great tool to have.  There's no denying that.  But whether the offensive player is behind the last defender is something that you should be able to see with the naked eye.  He shouldn't have a goal taken away and be called offside because that little animation showed his left big toe was 1/8 of an inch behind the last defender.  That clearly gave him such a big advantage!

In the NHL, a player is only offside if his entire body enters the offensive zone before the puck.  It should be something similar in soccer.  If should be an entire body part that makes you onside.  Not a shoulder.  Not an elbow.  Not a knee.  Not a finger.  Not a toe.  (Which begs a different question: Would he not be offside if he wore smaller cleats?)

Will changes be made to either VAR or offside before the 2030 World Cup?  Who knows?!  But there's no denying that they can both be improved.  And I think the easiest way to do that is starting simple.  They're both tools designed to fix "clear and obvious errors" that have strayed far from that original purpose.  So, go back to what VAR and the automated offside are supposed to be and stop overusing them.  That alone will go a long way, since it'd bring common sense and logic back into the equation.  Two elements that have clearly been missing.