I am enjoying the Women’s World Cup and am intrigued by reactions to the VAR (Video Assistant Referees) interventions in the Group A Nigeria v France match. I have followed the football industry’s reactions to VAR for a while and see them as the same as those of any industry that implements a new technology. There are benefits, and unexpected outcomes.
Last summer, much was made about how VAR contributed to England gaining from set-piece decisions. We heard many England fans observe, as their team reaped the benefits, that it was about time that the rules were observed. Indeed, I have read many proponents of VAR argue for it so that correct decisions are taken in a sport where every point accrued by a team has huge financial consequences for its club. VAR has been used incrementally since that competition, and like any technology, its use has evolved as the technology is better understood. One difficulty many are having is that the precision enabled by this technology has highlighted areas of the game in which the (sometimes little-known) rules can now be enforced where they were perhaps applied liberally: e.g. goalkeeper positioning at a penalty, defender body-shape changes conceding penalty kicks, etc. Fans are now seeing a game that matches the rules but which is not the game that they had understood to be actually played in practice. This requires a fan mind-set transformation before the technology change is fully understood and - if ever - appreciated.
However, it may also bring a change in the rules as the technology highlights the inadequacy of some of those rules. We may see the technology extended to other areas of the game, and other rules that have been liberally applied opened up to scrutiny: e.g. the obstruction of an attacker by a defender to allow the ball to roll into touch is presently considered legitimate control by the defender of the ball even though the defender is not touching it, the pushing and shoving by defenders and attackers that prefaces every set-piece (already penalised at last summer's World Cup), and others. These are the consequence of change, outcomes I see whenever working with organisations and industries in which technology is bringing transformation.
One last point to consider is that the VAR technology is used by humans; human decision-making is still part of the review process. In this regard, nothing has changed. The official interprets what the rules are and comes to a conclusion as to whether they were followed or broken. Thus, there is STILL a chance that the wrong decision is taken, and the prevailing rules are interpreted and enforced by the officials differently to how spectators would have applied them.