Fulham can change VAR for the greater good
Our season is proving to be an education in the true design flaws of VAR.
We’ve all seen the stat this weekend: Fulham have been denied a goal by VAR five times this season.
That’s three more times than any other Premier League club. Of more than 50 VAR interventions, 12 have involved Fulham - the highest in the top flight. That number also equals half of our 24 league games so far this season.
Of all the clubs for this to happen to, VAR and PGMOL have unwillingly picked wisely.
Shahid Khan infamously labelled Fulham fans as “the richest and most educated fanbase in football”. We are somewhat associated with sitting (not standing) up to argue with dignity. Fulham is a civilised establishment, after all. We tolerate, and we act politely. We understand the greater good of the game. We also know the devil is in the detail.
This season, Fulham’s role when it comes to VAR is inadvertently teaching football fans all over the world about flaws in the system. We are showing every viewer a whole new realm of VAR discrepancies.
I will not list all the incidents. But for Manchester United at home and away, two of the most anticipated games in a season, the fans have left the ground discussing VAR. This fact alone indicates something is, simply, wrong. Nothing could be more “clear and obvious” (note: subjective interpretations of this phrase will apply week to week).
We feel these deep-seated frustrations at football’s gravitations towards technology so strongly. Partly because Fulham have witnessed VAR’s capacity to make jaws drop for 12 weeks out of 24.
Take re-refereeing. VAR should not generate new decisions for the on-field referee, unless being directed to do so by the on-field referee. When VAR’s implementation limits were being drawn up, someone should have stopped to think. They should have asked “If we’re meant to be favouring the referee’s on-field decisions, is it right for VAR to make a request for the referee to consult a monitor?”.
When Josh King was denied a goal because of re-refereeing, PGMOL issued a formal apology, but then VAR seemed to find a ‘new’ foul for the referee to examine at Old Trafford this weekend.
Also, take the 5cm tolerance level. When the call is so tight that the technology cannot definitively call a “black and white” offside; we’ve then been told benefit of the doubt is built into the semi-automated system.
When this tolerance level was being built, the engineers and/or developers should have taken a minute to pause. They should have turned to their masters and asked a question. The question should have been: “If we’re making offside binary, why are we building contingencies for benefit of the doubt?”. To build benefit of the doubt into a semi-automated system hints at an imperfect system that is no better than a human referee.
This technology is designed to help the decision-maker make a definitive decision. If the technology is not capable of helping an official make a definitive decision, you either stop implementing the technology all together, or you rethink how the technology will be used entirely.
In sum, we now have incorrect decisions made on the pitch, and painfully poor methods of VAR implementation off it. This is before we even begin to factor in the lengthy delays, psychological impact on in-game players and poor fan experience.
So, as a reluctant member of richest and most educated fanbase in football, I implore Fulham to do something that should come naturally. Offer an intelligent solution to a complex problem. Take this issue to the PL board and campaign for some form of systemic change at the end of the season. Champion the cause of making technology part of the spectacle via an appeal-based system. Or support genuine limits to ensure on-field officials can choose to defer to the technology at their own discretion.
Give the game back to the players, and most importantly give it back to the officials. The game should not be subject to the flawed implementation of imperfect technology that then accounts for its own deficiencies. That is something officials can do just fine on their own.
The total number of VAR errors in the Premier League has already gone up since last season. If VAR issues are not addressed for the good of a game, eventually a courtroom will preside over the prospect of awarding a rematch (see Anderlecht v Genk circa 2023).
It’s a precedent that could lead to more football matches being decided in a courtroom, where the broadcast rights will not be quite so lucrative.
I'll keep saying this, but if you take a step back it is clear that football is in no better position than it was before technology, with the possible exception of 'Goal line' checks. Therefore why not just revert to having broadly the same amount of marginal refereeing errors in a game, but made by a human and in a game which has a much more natural flow and dynamic sense of appeal. Were we any more unhappy with officiating before technology? No. Did the game work fundamentally fine before technology? Yes. Was the game sufficiently exciting and entertaininy before technology? Yes. The solution is blindingly simple.
All fans of all sports want consistency when it comes to the rules. Why can the 5cm rule be used against us in a match to allow a clear offside goal ( that was far more than 5cms because the line went through half his foot). Yet the week before we have a goal disallowed because the line went through his big toe ( that’s less than 5cms). It’s like Eurovision, it has nothing to do with skill and there’s something political about it. The FA never likes Fayed and we’re still suffering.