Acknowledging the lack of clarity and delays from the use of the VAR (Video Assistant Referee) system, English Premier League clubs voted unanimously last year to introduce semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) for the current 2024/25 season.
VAR has led to heated debate about whether it ensures fair officiating – while some say that VAR has fixed key errors, others dispute the impact on the game’s flow and decision-making consistency.
Is VAR actually improving the fairness of outcomes, or does it bring new types of controversy?
How do marginal offside calls and subjective interpretations of “clear and obvious errors” affect the integrity of the game?
Background
VAR is a system where a technology-aided official assists on-field in making accurate decisions during key moments in football matches.
It operates remotely, providing the VAR team real-time access to multiple camera angles for reviewing incidents.
The system intervenes in only four match-changing situations—goals, penalties, red cards, and mistaken identity—while the final decision always rests with the on-field referee.
For subjective decisions, VAR only steps in if there is a clear and obvious error, but factual calls like offsides or handballs rely on objective evidence and aren’t subject to this error standard.
Early reactions to VAR were mixed: proponents praised its ability to improve decision-making precision, while critics claimed it interfered with game flow and caused uncertainty concerning subjectivity in implementation.
Has VAR Made Premier League Officiating Fairer?
Examining whether VAR guarantees fair officiating in Premier League games calls for statistical and anecdotal data from several seasons since its introduction.
According to the most recent Premier League statistics, 82% of refereeing decisions were accurate prior to the implementation of VAR.
Currently, 96% of decisions have been found to be accurate since the implementation of VAR.
This suggests that VAR has contributed to the reduction of refereeing errors, particularly in penalty situations and goal-related decisions.
Even so, there are still some controversies that persist, as numerous high-profile matches have been impacted by decisions regarding subjective incidents, such as marginal offsides or ambiguous fouls.
For instance, in August 2024, an incident in the Manchester United vs. Wolverhampton Wanderers match saw André Onana collided with Sasa Kalajdzic in stoppage time.
Despite the VAR reviewing Onana’s foul on Kalajdzic during stoppage time, controversially no penalty was awarded.
VAR decisions vary greatly between matches, leading to confusion and dissatisfaction among fans, players, and coaches.
The subjective nature of the “clear and obvious error” standard has also created challenges, as different referees and VAR officials interpret situations in varying ways.
This inconsistency erodes trust in the system, particularly when seemingly identical incidents are ruled differently in separate games.
Further compounding the issue is the disruptive impact that VAR checks have on the flow of the game.
Long pauses to review footage, with average review times of 84 seconds, can break momentum, causing frustration for both players and spectators.
These delays undermine the excitement of football, as fans are left waiting for decisions to be made, often with no clear communication from the officials.
Additionally, players have to adjust to the psychological difficulties presented by VAR, including keeping concentration during long inspections and being strong when possible triumphs are under review and could be overturned.
The technology itself, while generally reliable, is also not without fault.
Issues with camera angles, the speed of play, and the need for precise measurements (especially in offside calls) have all led to controversial rulings that critics argue go against the spirit of the game.
Marginal offside decisions, which can be determined by mere millimeters, are one of the most prominent criticisms.
These razor-thin determinations have been seen as overly technical, with some feeling they punish players for offenses that have no meaningful impact on the game.
The emotional and psychological effects of VAR are evident in reactions of players and managers who often express confusion or frustration following a VAR decision.
Referees, too, are under increased scrutiny, knowing that every decision they make can be overturned by the technology, potentially leading to more cautious or hesitant officiating.
Fans, meanwhile, experience a rollercoaster of emotions during lengthy VAR reviews, which can sap enjoyment out of live matches.
Instead of celebrating a goal immediately, they may have to wait in anticipation for confirmation, leading to delayed and less enthusiastic responses.
While VAR has undoubtedly reduced major errors in the game, it’s introduced new complexities that have sparked ongoing debate about whether it has made the sport fairer.
Ultimately, while the intentions behind VAR are noble, the current execution leaves much to be desired, and discussions on how to improve the system continue within the football community.
Conclusion
The VAR system has changed modern football in general, beyond the Premier League.
In addition to introducing new challenges and controversies, it’s also improved accuracy and impartiality in the game.
The 20 Premier League teams have decided to concentrate on six main areas to improve the application of VAR including lowering game delays and raising the bar needed for technology to intervene.
VAR will continue to evolve in parallel with technological advancements.
Its current limitations may be resolved by future developments, and the process could be optimized to improve its speed and precision by incorporating automated systems like SAOT and enhanced AI.
