Wolves lose bid to scrap VAR in Premier League 19 votes to 1 — ESPN 6/6/24
Dale Johnson
Wolverhampton Wanderers have failed to receive any support
from other teams in the Premier League in their bid to get VAR scrapped, with
clubs voting 19-1 to keep the video assistant on Thursday.
Wolves lodged a motion for consideration at the
end-of-season AGM stating that "the price we are paying for a small
increase in accuracy is at odds with the spirit of our game, and as a result we
should remove it from the 2024/25 season onwards."
Fourteen clubs of the 20 top-flight clubs needed to back
Wolves' motion for it to pass and for VAR to be removed from English football
with immediate effect. It was thought the vote might not even go ahead due to a
lack of support, and while it did it was effectively a token measure; it was
effectively reduced to an umbrella discussion of areas for improvement
Ahead of the meeting, clubs who regularly play in European
competition, which feature VAR, had not been expected to entertain removing it
from the Premier League, while clubs from lower down in the table had indicated
that ditching the video referee at this stage would be counter-productive.
While other clubs shared Wolves' concern about ongoing
problems with its implementation, many believe VAR provides a safety net
against poor on-field decisions and steps should be taken to improve the
processes.
Club agreed six action points for the improvement of VAR:
1. Maintaining a high threshold for VAR intervention to
deliver greater consistency and less interruptions to the flow of the game.
2. Reducing delays to the game, primarily through the
introduction of semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) and the maintained
high threshold for VAR intervention.
3. Improving fan experience through a reduction in the
delays, in-stadium announcements from referees after a post-VAR change of
decision and where possible, an enhanced offering of big screen replays to
include all VAR interventions.
4. Working with PGMOL on the implementation of more robust
VAR training to improve consistency, including an emphasis on speed of process
while preserving accuracy.
5. Increasing transparency and communication around VAR --
including expanded communications from Premier League Match Centre and through
broadcast programming
6. The delivery of a fan and stakeholder VAR communication
campaign, which will seek to further clarify VAR's role in the game to
participants and supporters.
With 38 VAR errors in 2022-23, the Premier League
highlighted a 21% drop in mistakes year-on-year to show things are getting
better, despite some high profile incidents. Yet the problem is there are many
more situations outside of those identified by the KMI Panel which managers and
fans will feel are wrong.
Clubs approved referees announcing the explanation for a VAR
overturn to the crowd. This will largely only apply to a referee visiting the
pitchside monitor to overturn a subjective decision, which happened 66 times
last season. It will not apply to the occasions when a VAR checks and opts not
to send the referee to the screen, so for instance three penalty incidents
which incensed Nottingham Forest in their 2-0 loss at Everton in April. This
cannot include any use of the VAR audio.
It's hoped that this will remove some of the inertia inside
a stadium about why a decision has been changed, but it is unlikely to go far
enough to placate fans who feel VAR has taken far more away from the game than
it has added.
The AGM comes less than two months after the 20 Premier
League clubs voted to introduce semiautomated offside technology (SAOT) next
season, which involves a contract with a new offside technology supplier,
Second Spectrum. That will be delayed until after one of the autumn
international breaks as further testing is required to ensure the system is
robust.
It is hoped that SAOT will, on average, make offside
decisions 31 seconds quicker by removing the human aspect of the VAR drawing
lines onto the players. But this technology isn't going to make offside calls
instant, there is likely to be an increased number of marginal decisions as,
unlikely the current Hawk-Eye software, SAOT doesn't have a built-in tolerance
level, and some situations -- where several players are involved in close
proximity -- the VAR may have to resort to using the old Hawk-Eye system.
Second Spectrum has been the official tracking provider of
the Premier League since 2020, and will use artificial intelligence
(AI)-powered skeletal tracking technology -- which provides the foundation for
SAOT. However, as in Serie A and the UEFA Champions League there won't be a
chip within the ball to automatically detect the kick-point. So far this has
only been used at the FIFA World Cup, but it will be used by UEFA for the first
time at Euro 2024.
The Premier League is, to an extent, constrained by the
IFAB, football's lawmaker, as to what can be shared during a game, such as the
conversation between the referee and VAR as it happens. Th Premier League said
it would "continue to lobby IFAB to allow greater flexibility in the Laws
of the Game to allow live video and audio broadcast during VAR reviews."
Wolves won't get VAR scrapped, but Premier League must react
Dale Johnson
VAR has never been an easy bedfellow for English football.
The Premier League was the last of Europe's major leagues to adopt it in
2019-20, and it's never been accepted. It hasn't got to grips with what it
wants VAR to be, and we're left with a hybrid model that satisfies no one.
Step forward Wolverhampton Wanderers, who on Wednesday
became the first club to put their head above the parapet and call for VAR to
be scrapped ahead of next season.
Premier League clubs will vote on the motion when they meet
for their annual general meeting in Harrogate on June 6. Wolves' resolution is
unlikely to get the 14 votes it needs to pass -- though it would be no surprise
if Nottingham Forest are one of the clubs to support it given their recent
outbursts -- but it will at least provide the opportunity to reflect and reset.
The clubs who regularly take part in European competition
are unlikely break ranks with the wider game. For all of Mikel Arteta's
complaints earlier this season, the Arsenal boss has spoken of his desire to
work with Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL). ESPN is aware of
at least two other clubs outside of the Big Six who won't vote in favour.
The clubs have invested huge sums to introduced
semi-automated offside (SAOT) VAR next season -- it was only voted through last
month -- and that would have to be scrapped, too. They have also put vast
resources into the VAR hub in Stockley Park. Money alone shouldn't be the
reason VAR stays, but this investment clearly wasn't made for one season --
especially SAOT, which involves a contract with a new technology partner. Clubs
cannot scrap VAR and still implement SAOT.
Over the five seasons of VAR, when all decisions for and
against are tallied up, Wolves have a net score of minus-17 (15 decisions for,
32 against). The second-worst score is owned by Arsenal, who have a distant
minus-7. Of the 13 clubs to play in the top flight throughout that time span,
only two others have a negative VAR score: Tottenham (minus-3) and West Ham
(minus-5).
This isn't to denigrate Wolves' stance, but it does explain
why they of all clubs would be the ones to make this move.
This season, Wolves have had three VAR errors logged against
them by the Independent Key Match Incidents Panel, yet that paints only part of
the picture of their frustration. There has been a catalogue of other decisions
they've disagreed with, notably a handball penalty awarded on the field to
Luton Town and a late equaliser disallowed by the VAR for offside against West
Ham United; both were correct.
It was the goal against West Ham that led manager Gary
O'Neil to confront referee Tony Harrington afterward, resulting in a Football
Association charge and a one-match touchline ban. In the days that followed,
Wolves chairman Jeff Shi issued a statement that gave an indication of what was
to come.
"When a goal is scored and not one person inside the
stadium questions the validity of that goal, including both sets of players,
coaches, fans and even the match officials themselves, it's time to question
whether someone remote disallowing that goal is really what football wants or
needs," Shi said. "It is our sincere hope that the Premier League and
PGMOL recognise the importance of addressing these concerns to uphold the
integrity of the competition and demonstrate why the Premier League is regarded
as the best in the world."
Shi's words will ring true for many fans. The refusal of
FIFA and the International Football Association Board to allow VAR to naturally
develop has caused stagnation and frustration, and it has exacerbated every
problem it faces in its efforts to be accepted in football. The Premier League,
meanwhile, is so determined to protect its own product that it has brought in a
VAR system that has caused more harm than good.
FIVE-YEAR VAR DECISIONS NET SCORE
CLUB SCORE
Brighton +8
Liverpool +5
Aston Villa +4
Man City +4
Man United +3
Newcastle +3
Everton +2
Chelsea 0
Crystal Palace +2
Tottenham -4
Arsenal -6
West Ham -6
Wolves -18
Few will argue against the points made in Wolves' statement.
That's especially true of the experience of match-going fans, and if the clubs
were to poll their season-ticket holders, VAR would almost certainly be gone.
The stats may show that decisions are now 96% correct, up from 82%, but fans
believe some of the calls within that 14% are incorrect.
How the supporter experience hasn't developed in the seven
years since VAR came in has been a remarkable show of stubbornness from those
at the very top. Wolves' proposal comes when, finally, changes are afoot that
could improve that. Even so, referees being allowed to announce VAR decisions
to crowds only scratches the surface.
The Premier League, which is staunchly against Wolves'
proposal, has questions of its own. It has been so afraid of damaging the
fast-paced, physical nature of the game that it has created a VAR system that
is neither one thing nor the other.
The PGMOL has received most of the criticism over this (and
the buck does stop with it over refereeing standards). But it's the Premier
League that decides how it wants the game to be played: from voting on using
VAR, on SAOT, and how it wants games refereed. The PGMOL is in effect the
service provider; the Premier League sets the parameters.
The Premier League is desperate to ensure the VAR shouldn't
get involved too much, so afraid that its winning model will be hurt. The
hands-off approach gives the impression that controversial decisions aren't
even looked at. It invites the injustice Wolves feel. The stats might show that
VAR errors are down 23.68% year on year, but that's irrelevant if fans and
clubs believe it's going in the other direction.
Wolves complained about the "overreach of VAR's
original purpose to correct clear and obvious mistakes," but in the
Premier League at least, there has been a drive to get VAR back to that ethos.
It's just being done the wrong way.
Of the 29 VAR errors logged this season, 24 are missed
interventions. Referees are hamstrung by an instruction to only send referees
to the monitor if it matches the high bar, an intervention point that can't be
measured and is in itself subjective. It gives a sense of inaction, that VARs
are deliberately avoiding sending referees to the monitor. And when they do,
you can be almost certain that the decision will be changed.
For the perception of VAR to improve, the Premier League
needs to embrace the way it was intended to work. Referees need to have greater
control and to make more calls on the most controversial decisions -- and that
means we need to see more referees being sent to the screen and, at times,
sticking with their initial view. Would Liverpool fans be more accepting of the
decision not to award a penalty for Jérémy Doku's challenge on Alexis Mac
Allister if referee Michael Oliver had confirmed his on-field call at the
monitor?
The Premier League board might not like to hear it, but it's
a key reason why trust, as Wolves put it, has eroded. We're not talking about a
huge amount of extra stoppages, just that most of those 24 errors might be
avoided with a more relaxed approach, and there might be more acceptance from
supporters and clubs if a few controversial decisions are rubber-stamped by the
referee.
Indeed, the worst decisions against Wolves this season have
occurred because the VAR didn't get involved (remember, the decision to
disallow that goal against West Ham was the correct decision.)
In the first weekend of the season, Wolves should have had a
penalty at Manchester United, but the VAR backed up the officials on the field.
Newcastle United and Sheffield United were both given penalties on the field
that should have been cancelled. These are problems of implementation, rather
than VAR itself.
That's not to say this will fix all of VAR's ills. That's
impossible with this system. FIFA's tunnel vision over the protocol it first
began to put together 10 years ago has stifled any development and means we
remain in a fog of "clear and obvious" where every goal could be
disallowed.
But maybe if the Premier League began to operate VAR closer
to other leagues, rather than trying to reinvent the intention of the monitor,
things might actually start to improve.
