USA News Hub

The use of video technology in football may have made refereeing decisions more accurate overall but it is also changing the game for the worse, critics argue.

Anger at how the “video assistant referee” (VAR) is being used has been steadily growing since being introduced into English football in 2019, and there have been a number of high-profile incidents this season, said The Times in an editorial last year. Two more during last weekend’s action seem to have tipped the debate over the edge.

In the wake of what Metro called a “controversial weekend for football’s video assistant referee”, Labour leader Keir Starmer threw his weight behind calls to reform the system.

‘We cannot suddenly ditch VAR’

Nottingham Forest released a furious statement on X following their Premier League defeat to Everton on Sunday, claiming they had been denied three clear penalties and accusing the VAR of being a fan of their relegation rivals Luton.

Just hours later, Coventry City were denied a place in the FA Cup final after staging a thrilling comeback from 3-0 down against Manchester United at Wembley. The Championship side had a last-minute extra-time winner disallowed in a marginal offside decision. They then lost the penalty shoot-out to their Premier League opponents.

Speaking at the FA’s headquarters near Burton upon Trent, Starmer said in reference to the FA Cup semi-final: “It’s a really well-worked goal, and it’s ruled out because there’s what, a toenail of difference between the attacker and the defender? Don’t tell me a toenail gives you an advantage in football.”

“Sorry to be a killjoy,” said The Mirror‘s chief football writer John Cross, “but the offside decision to disallow what would have been Victor Torp’s extra time winner was the correct one”.

Cross argued that “just because it would have been a great fairytale, we cannot suddenly ditch VAR”.

While VAR has made hundreds of correct calls since its introduction, this has been “overshadowed by numerous controversial decisions – especially those later accepted by referees to be wrong”, said The Guardian in an editorial last year.

While technology is used to make real‑time decisions in cricket, rugby and tennis, “interruptions are part of those sports”, said the paper. “In football, VAR reduces spontaneity and introduces stoppages. It slows down – and lengthens – the most beautiful game.”

‘It’s about keeping the game an art’

There are many who see only one way out of the current mess: scrapping VAR entirely.

“Yes, it could be better,” said John Nicholson on Football 365, “but that would only bring it back to the standard of refereeing before VAR. There’s a level that cannot be exceeded because people are not perfect. Accept it.”

It is worth recalling that VAR was introduced as a “check on only the gravest refereeing oversights, not to re-referee every decision”, said The Times in its latest editorial on the subject. “Its increasing use outside this remit risks entrenching a sense of unfairness among fans.”

Yet despite the outcry from clubs, fans and pundits alike, data suggests VAR has improved the accuracy of decisions by 14%.

The solution, then, is “not to abolish VAR,” said The Times, but to use it “sparingly and increase transparency by broadcasting conferrals. The halting way VAR is employed causes confusion in the stands and stasis on the pitch, while its opacity fuels baseless ­conspiracy. To restore lost drama and a sense of fair play, spectators must be let in on the action.”

Peter Walton, a Premier League referee from 2003-12, told The Times: “It’s not about making the game a science, it’s about keeping it as an art and leaving it as a debate.”