Ask “Collina’s heirs”.
VAR Debate: How about the ‘Challenge’?
By Alex Feuerherdt
2/20/2023 7:52 am
Even on the 21st matchday of the Bundesliga, the discussions about the VAR did not stop, fueled above all by the questionable red card for Dayot Upamecano from Munich. Could an intervention in the rules provide a remedy?
Even five and a half years after the introduction of the video assistant in the Bundesliga, there is still heated discussion about one essential aspect: When is intervention by the VAR required and when is it not? On paper, the answer is simple: there should only be an intervention if the referee makes a clear and obvious mistake in a game-relevant situation or if the referee overlooks a serious incident. In practice, however, it is much more complicated: there are always cases in which some are certain that the referee made a serious mistake, while others find the decision correct, justifiable or at least not completely absurd.
The fact that there can be such very different assessments is not least due to the fact that there is quite a large gray area in practice when interpreting and applying the rules of football, so the discretion of the referees is quite considerable. This applies in particular to the evaluation of duels and handballs, sometimes also to personal penalties. Accordingly, it is often not so easy to draw the line between a decision that can just about be justified with stomach ache and one for which there is no valid argument. The fact that a scene is often enough seen through the club’s glasses is also an important factor.
A week ago, VfB Stuttgart, especially its coach Bruno Labbadia, was upset about an intervention by the VAR to the detriment of the Swabians in their game at SC Freiburg (1: 2). The intervention had led to a longer on-field review and finally to a penalty kick for Freiburg, which resulted in their winning goal. Stuttgart objected that referee Sascha Stegemann had made the clear and conscious decision on the field to allow play to continue. In any case, that could not have been obviously wrong if the check on the monitor took so long. The intervention of the VAR was therefore not necessary. Labbadia even thought that the referees would be “defeated” by the video assistants.
Red for Upamecano was too hard
It was the other way around on Saturday afternoon in the game between Borussia Mönchengladbach and FC Bayern Munich (3: 2): Bayern would have liked to see referee Tobias Welz remember his decision to send Dayot Upamecano off after just eight minutes, would have looked at the monitor again. The defender briefly and lightly grabbed Alassane Pléa’s shoulder during a running duel a few meters from his own penalty area. The Gladbacher, who only had goalkeeper Yann Sommer in front of him, then stumbled and finally fell to the ground. Referee Welz rated Upamecano’s use as a foul and also as a thwarting of an obvious scoring opportunity – which was undisputed.
In the show “Doppelpass” Welz said that Pléa was thrown off balance by Upamecano’s grip on the shoulder, which for him was “the decisive argument”. The Gladbacher ran towards the goalkeeper alone and wanted to score the goal, which is why there was no reason for him to let himself fall. According to the game director, VAR Tobias Stieler “couldn’t have provided any other pictures” – in other words: none that contradicted Welz’s perception. Therefore there was no intervention. The decision was in the gray area and was “therefore absolutely nothing for the video evidence,” said the referee from Wiesbaden.
Welz’s assessment of the duel between Upamecano and Pléa was not shared by many, for good reason: the momentum against the Gladbach attacker’s shoulder was minimal and it is doubtful that it was really decisive for Pléa losing his step and fell even when he was traveling at some speed. Assessing Upamecano’s action as a push, hold or pull was an overly tough decision, and playing on would have been a much better decision. But was the hit made crystal clear and unquestionably wrong?
There is also a dispute about the VAR in England
In any case, Tobias Welz made it clear that he stands by his decision, even with a time lag. The discussions about the video assistant went on nevertheless – or precisely because of this – and it remains the case that there are essentially two opposing positions: For some, the intervention threshold should be as high as possible, for others it would be better if the referee spoke more frequently the monitor to get another picture for yourself. Sometimes one position dominates the debate, sometimes the other.
Both camps agree in their dissatisfaction with the VAR – which, by the way, is not a specifically German problem. There are similar debates and similar criticisms in other major professional leagues. For example in the English Premier League, where the referee association PGMOL admitted several serious wrong decisions involving the VAR in a statement after the game before last. She even separated from the video assistant Lee Mason – a long-standing, very experienced referee and VAR – “by mutual consent”, as it is officially called. The new referee boss Howard Webb has his hands full right now.
What a “challenge” speaks
The recurring discussions about the VAR are likely to tire many by now, including the referees themselves. But the abolition of the video assistant, as demanded by some fans, is not a realistic option – on the contrary, the VAR is being introduced in more and more countries and competitions. Because despite all the criticism, viewed objectively, it actually helps to significantly reduce the number of game-related wrong decisions.
Maybe it could be an idea if the rule holders at the International Football Association Board and FIFA seriously considered introducing a so-called challenge, as it already exists in some other sports, such as American football. A challenge would mean that the teams themselves decide when a referee’s decision will be reviewed as part of an on-field review.
This would solve the intervention threshold problem because an intervention would then no longer depend on whether the VAR judged a decision to be clearly and obviously wrong. Of course, the number of challenges would have to be limited, to about one per team and halftime. If the decision were changed after an on-field review, that team would be given the opportunity for another challenge. Only those game-relevant decisions that are already listed in the VAR protocol could be checked: goals, penalties, red cards, mistaken identity.
The referees would be relieved of a burden
Black-and-white decisions – such as a goal scorer’s hand ball or an offside position before a goal – could still be subject to mandatory review by the VAR, so would not fall under the challenge. Certainly, this system would also have disadvantages – for example, a serious error could no longer be checked if all challenge options were used. And of course there would still be discussions about the final decision that the referee makes after going to the monitor. However, this will not change anyway.
But the referees and their video assistants would be relieved of the burden of having to determine in a large gray area when the lines of black and white are crossed. The responsibility for deciding when a scene is reviewed would lie with the teams – and also the risk of failing with an entry and then having no further opportunity to request an on-field review in the respective half. The challenge could bring movement to the muddled and hardened discussion about the VAR. And she could exonerate the referees.