Imagine a football world in which Geoffrey Hurst's second goal against West Germany in the 1966 World Cup final did not count. Or Diego Maradona's “Hand of God” against England was spotted as being actually the hand of the Argentine. Or when Thierry Henry literally took matters into his own hands, assisting in the goal that unfairly sent France to the 2010 World Cup. If Video Assistant Referee (VAR) had been around during the time of these consequential decisions, the football landscape could have changed drastically. VAR is designed to help referees by giving them access to video reviews of key moments during games. It is used only to correct “clear and obvious mistakes” — to allow or disallow goals, award or deny penalties, show or rescind red cards, or correct instances of mistaken identity when a referee disciplines the wrong player. The technology has been employed in Italy, Spain and the US, among other countries, but now it will be used on the biggest stage of all: the World Cup. The original mandate states that the aim of VAR is two-fold — to achieve 100 per cent accuracy, whilst not “destroying the essential flow” of the game. On both counts, VAR has obvious shortcomings. Despite a team of three people situated in a video operation room — essentially a bank of monitors offering different camera angles — working together to review certain decisions made by the referee by watching video replays of the relevant incidents, they cannot always come to a clear-cut conclusion. TV viewers can try this at home. No matter what slow motion and countless replays from all sorts of angles show, the audience at home and football analysts in TV studios often disagree on whether a ball crossed the goal line, offsides and other such instances that generate heated and inconclusive debate. As for the flow of the game, VAR reviews take up to three minutes. That's a lot in football which already suffers from constant delays due mostly to injuries. The kind of stoppages typically seen in rugby, cricket and the NFL are handled quicker and more adroitly, probably because these sports have a longer history in dealing with stopping the clock. VAR is still in a massive learning curve. A referee must make a decision first. If VAR sees the decision is incorrect, it tells the referee in his earpiece. Next he'll draw a rectangular TV screen shape in mid-air, indicating that the incident is being reviewed. Once VAR offers its opinion, the referee will either follow its advice or stick to his decision. The final decision is always made by the referee. Managers or players cannot appeal for an incident to be reviewed. Players have been warned that they will be at risk of a booking if they try and urge the referee to use VAR. VAR has its backers, like referees. British refs have indeed been encouraging the Premier League to bring it into play as soon as possible. The most prominent advocate is FIFA supremo Gianni Infantino who has insisted that its use would make football a fairer game. That is in marked contrast to Infantino's predecessor Sepp Blatter who insisted that football should maintain the human touch, errors and all. VAR is a work in progress and while it has clear benefits, is not a fix-all solution to decision making. The latest, perhaps greatest, example came in the Bundesliga last week. With seconds left in the first half and the game scoreless, Mainz had a penalty appeal for handball turned down by the referee, Guido Winkmann. The players trooped off for their half-time break only to be summoned back as VAR was not finished. Winkmann had been told to check his decision and, after five minutes of deliberation, decided he would give a penalty after all. The players were called back from their dressing rooms, Pablo de Blasis scored the spot-kick, and the players walked off again. Winkmann's decision was unquestionably correct, but the manner in which it was awarded was chaotic. The problem was not the technology but the process. One issue has been that fans have been unable to understand refereeing decisions in which VAR intervenes, leading to confusion. To keep fans in the loop, in Russia, replays of incidents reviewed by VAR will be shown on big screens. Spectators will be told when a decision is being reviewed and why a decision has been reached. However, the replays will not be shown inside the ground while the referee is making a decision, only afterwards so the official is not influenced by the crowd. Football must move with the times, and out of necessity. England midfielder Frank Lampard's disallowed goal against Germany in the 2010 World Cup, in which the whole world saw the ball cross the goal-line by a good half-metre except referee Jorge Larrionda and his linesman, was instrumental in FIFA's decision to introduce goal-line technology for Brazil 2014. Back to our possible game-changers that could have altered the course of history. In the 1966 World Cup final, after the Germans equalised to level the match at 2-2 at full-time, in the first period of extra-time, Alan Ball crossed across the near post to Hurst, who struck a powerful shot towards goal with his right foot. The ball beat goalkeeper Hans Tilkowski, hit the crossbar and bounced down before Wolfgang Weber headed it out for a corner. England's players claimed a goal whilst the Germans were adamant that the ball had not fully crossed the line. Gottfried Dienst of Switzerland, the best ref in the world at the time, consulted his linesman on the right flank who signalled that the ball had crossed the line, and the goal was given. Hurst would go on to score his unprecedented hat-trick for the famous Wembley victory. But who knows what could have happened if Hurst's ricochet had been disallowed. Decades later, Dienst wrote that having listened to all the arguments and watched the replay hundreds of times on TV, “I have to admit that it looks as though the ball didn't cross the line.” In the 1986 World Cup, the 5 feet 5 inch Maradona rose alongside 6 feet 1 goalkeeper Peter Shilton for the ball. They both arrived at almost the same time but the Argentinian used his fist to intentionally knock the ball in. Tunisian referee Ali bin Nasser called it a goal, convinced Maradona scored with his head, opening the way for Argentina's 2-1 win. Without the “Hand of God”, would Maradona have gone on to score the “Goal of the Century” just four minutes later when he weaved his way past half the English team before beating Shilton? And would Argentina have gone on to win the World Cup? In 2009, Henry broke Irish hearts as the Frenchman ensured his nation qualified for the World Cup by any means necessary. With the scores locked at 1-1 after two legs, the play-off went to extra time in Paris' Stade de France. As the clock ticked towards full-time, Henry controlled the ball with his hand, before squaring across goal for William Gallas who nodded the ball into the empty net. With VAR's intervention, however, Swedish referee Martin Hansson and his officials would likely not have awarded “La Main de Dieu”, and Ireland might have taken France's place in South Africa. Football is strewn with “what if” matches had a ruling gone the other way. VAR is not unfailing. Last year's Confederations Cup provided plenty of evidence of how VAR got things wrong — notably in not determining Chile defender Gonzalo Jara should have been red carded for elbowing German forward Timo Werner in the face in the final. The use of VAR is one of the most polarising issues in modern football, although it shouldn't be. The objective was never to check every minor incident. An obvious infraction does not need VAR. Evidence from leagues that currently have VAR in operation suggest that it is called upon once every three games on average. The testing of VAR in various leagues and competitions around the world has not gone according to script by some of its most ardent proponents who were promised that it would take only a matter of seconds for a referee to review his decision and would not impact on the flow of the game. VAR has undoubtedly raised some questions. However, despite there being a referee, aided by two assistant referees and two goal-line assistants, they still all need help in varying degrees. VAR is neither all-powerful nor infallible. It can never be 100 per cent perfect and it will take time to get it right. Statistics show VAR gets decisions right. It just might take a longer time. But on football's biggest world stage, there should be no room for error. A few minutes delay is a small price to pay to make sure that decisions are correct.
