Ever since its introduction, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) has been a source of intense controversy. The main complaint is that it kills the rhythm of the game. Players score a goal and hesitate to celebrate, waiting for a silent verdict from a room miles away. By the time a decision is made, the raw emotion is gone.
But here's my take: the problem isn't VAR technology itself. The problem is that its implementation completely ignores a fundamental design principle: the alignment of power and responsibility. The power to use the tech and the consequences of its use have been separated.
Let's be clear: VAR is beneficial to both teams. According to the International Football Association Board (IFAB), its use is limited to four game-changing scenarios:
- Goals and whether there was a violation in the build-up
- Penalty decisions
- Direct red card incidents
- Mistaken identity
The guiding principle is that VAR should only intervene for "clear and obvious errors" or "serious missed incidents."
Both teams are beneficiaries of this quest for fairness. While events like the "Hand of God" or the "ghost goal" at the World Cup make for great folklore, no player who has trained for years wants their team eliminated by such an error. (From this perspective, England should be VAR's biggest supporter, having been on the losing end of both of those infamous calls.) VAR ensures the game's outcome isn't wildly skewed by a bad call. If my offside goal is disallowed, yours will be too. From a fairness standpoint, it works.
But what we truly love is the union of fairness and efficiency. And "efficiency" is precisely where VAR fails.
According to IFAB, the VAR workflow is as follows:
- The VAR team watches the game from a video room, looking for potential errors. The coaches and players do not need to request a review.
- If nothing is found, the VAR does not communicate with the on-field referee. If a check is needed, the VAR initiates contact. The on-field referee can also request a review if they suspect a serious error.
Under this system, the power to use the technology lies with the referees, while the consequences of its use—the constant stoppages and broken flow of the game—are borne by the teams. Power and responsibility are completely decoupled. The players and coaches can do nothing but wait as the referees endlessly hunt for potential errors. The result is a fragmented and frustrating viewing experience.
A Better Model: The "Hawk-Eye" Challenge in Tennis
Contrast VAR with the "Hawk-Eye" system in tennis, which allows players to challenge a referee's call using video assistance. The key differences between Hawk-Eye and VAR are:
- A Hawk-Eye challenge must be initiated by a player.
- The number of challenges per set is strictly limited.
This design brilliantly unifies the power to use the technology with the consequences of that use. The primary beneficiary (the player) is also the one who must initiate its use. To prevent abuse, their power is capped. The result is a system where players only use their challenges on critical calls where they have a high degree of confidence. It protects fairness while minimizing the disruption to the game's flow.
Active vs. Passive: Two Different Philosophies
At their core, VAR and Hawk-Eye represent two completely different philosophies of rights protection:
- Football's VAR is an active system. The refereeing body proactively intervenes on behalf of the stakeholders (the teams), even if the stakeholders themselves didn't notice an error or don't care about it.
- Tennis's Hawk-Eye is a passive system. It assumes the stakeholders (the players) are the best judges of their own interests. If you believe your rights have been violated, you must make a claim. If you don't, the system doesn't intervene.
To use a real-world analogy, imagine someone owes you money. Under the VAR rules, a judge would proactively force them to pay you back, even if you had decided to forgive the debt. Under the Hawk-Eye rules, the judge only gets involved if you decide to sue. It’s obvious which system leads to more interventions.
How to Fix VAR: A Three-Step Solution
The solution to VAR's impact on the game's rhythm is simple: change it from an active system to a passive one.
Step 1: Shift from an Active to a Passive System. Make VAR challenges initiated by the team captain or coach. If the people directly affected by a call don't care enough to challenge it, there's no need for a third party to intervene.
This only solves half the problem, as teams would likely challenge everything. So, the next step is equally simple.
Step 2: Introduce a Limit. Like Hawk-Eye, give each team a limited number of challenges per game (e.g., three). This immediately forces teams to save their challenges for the most critical moments.
This ensures challenges are used on critical calls, but not necessarily necessary ones. A team with three challenges will likely use all three on principle—a "use it or lose it" mentality. The final step solves this.
Step 3: Tie the Challenge to a Valuable In-Game Resource. To ensure teams only use challenges when a situation is both critical AND necessary, link the use of a VAR challenge to a substitution slot. Using a challenge costs you one of your precious substitutions. This forces a true cost-benefit analysis and ensures challenges are reserved for only the most important and obvious errors. It would also hard-cap the number of potential interruptions in a match.
The current problems with VAR are not a failure of technology. They are a failure of incentive design. Therefore, the solution isn't to get rid of the tech, but to fix the broken system that governs its use.