VAR isn’t going to go away – there’s too much invested in it.
The broadcasters – who really run football – will not give up their extra slice of TV drama.
But only the most one-eyed backer of the system can claim it is working the way it was sold.
We were promised “minimal interference, maximum benefit.”
Not five minutes to decide if the ball went out of play 90 yards away – which saw Aston Villa have a goal ruled out against Brentford.
It took just as long to rule out a Fulham goal at Old Trafford.
WILL POWER
Former Man Utd star Brandon Williams’ contract ripped up after just six months
BET BOOSTER
Best bet builder sites in the UK for 2025/26
There, a player Manchester United were NOT appealing against, had already been deemed to have gone behind the defensive wall too early.
When Premier League bosses announced the introduction of the technology seven years ago, it was promised as the solution to those outrageous blunders that had dogged the game since its inception.
A fail-safe mechanism.
It was never meant to be the end of controversial incidents, just a different set of controversies.
Yet with every passing week, every storm of disgust, the fans in the stadium, the very lifeblood of the game, are being short-changed and let down.
Not by the officials.
Prem refs, despite the moans and groans, are as good – arguably better – than their overseas contemporaries.
But by the system itself.
Micro-analysis of every goal is a requirement of the VAR protocols.
The officials in the Stockley Park booths have to do it.
Indeed, in England, there is a markedly “higher bar” for intervention than any of the other major leagues.
It’s why managers talk about “Uefa penalties.”
Yet those endless delays, the goals ruled out for offences that nobody in the ground or even on the pitch had spotted, are denuding football of the essence of the game, the spontaneity and emotional spasm that a goal should bring.
So it is time for football to do something football doesn’t like to do.
Take a lesson from other sports. Strip out the automatic checks.
Go full bore to a challenge system.
One, maybe two, unsuccessful appeals per match, the coach playing a “blue card” or the equivalent, within ten seconds of play stopping.
Immediately, it would restore the primacy of the on-field decision, giving more authority to the referee and his assistants.
If you risk blowing the chance of an appeal against a genuine howler, then speculative challenges would swiftly disappear.
And that appeal would have to be on specific grounds.
If United had challenged Fulham’s first “goal” for an alleged offside against Jorge Cuenca, VAR would not be checking if Samuel Chukwueze was a fraction behind the ball at the initial free-kick.
And if Rico Henry was convinced the ball was out of play at Villa Park 19 seconds before Tammy Abraham’s shot hit the back of Brentford’s net, he would have to convince his boss Keith Andrews to play his review card immediately.
Do you think he would have?
Of course, if the Prem had followed Fifa’s lead and opted for a “connected ball,” operated by a chip system, there would have been an automatic signal to the match officials to stop play long before Abraham thought he had scored.
For now, the International FA Board (Ifab), football’s lawmakers, are resolutely against the idea.
Yet they have also sanctioned the use of Football Video Support – effectively VAR-lite – in smaller leagues that cannot afford the full bells-and-whistles technology.
In those competitions, coaches are allowed two challenges per match but must do so instantly.
The referee then heads directly to the pitchside monitor to review the incident and make a final decision.
To speed things up in the Prem, objective offside challenges could be dealt with by Stockley Park.
Those officials could also intervene for incidents of violent conduct missed by the on-field team.
But what you would get is fewer stoppages and reviews.
That has to be better, for everyone.
Read the full article here