The problem with video assistant referee

One of the most unfortunate developments in professional association football (soccer) over the past few years has been the introduction of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR). For those not familiar, VAR is a system that allows on-field refereeing decisions to be overturned if there is video evidence to warrant it.  With a seemingly endless array of camera angles and super slow-motion, using VAR will, in principle, allow referees to get every call right.

And this is precisely the problem with VAR.  Those who support its use are under the impression that all refereeing decisions are either right or wrong.  The fact is, however, that refereeing calls are subjective.

Take, for example, the Offside Rule.  According to the Football Association (FA), football's governing body in England, a player is in an offside position if:
--any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent,
--the hands and arms of all players...are not considered.
Here, a first grey area arises.  Where do the arms of a player end?  Are the shoulders part of the arm?  In order for one to precisely define an offside position, one would need to precisely define where the the human arm ends.  Clearly, this is not possible.

Even if were were to be able to precisely define what an offside position is, in order for one to apply the offside rule, one needs to determine if an offside offense has occured.  According to the FA, an offside offense occurs if
--a player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by...
and then there is a list of 13 ways a player could be involved in active play.  Here again, we encounter a grey area; there is no precise way to define what it means to be "involved in active play."

Offside offences are not the only offences that require referees to make subjective decisions.  Fouls and hand-balls, for example, require the referee to determine what a players intent was during play.  The fact is, nearly every refereeing decision will require some level of subjectivity.  And VAR cannot "correct" this.

VAR has not solved the problem for which it was introduced.  Furthermore, it is costly to implement and results in stoppages in play that, in my view, detract from the enjoyment and excitement of football.  We should abolish VAR from football.

A few ways to improve association football

Association football (soccer) is by far my favorite sport.  While the rules of the beautiful game have remained (mostly) unchanged since its invention, there are a few rule changes that, if made, in my view, would make the game faster paced, higher scoring, and generally more entertaining. 

Replace throw-ins with kick-ins.  Players are not physically able to throw the ball with anywhere near the velocity that they can kick the ball.  If throw-ins were replaced by kick-ins, there would be many more goal-scoring opportunities in each match.

Allow hockey-like substitutions.  In hockey, there is no limit to the number of substitutions a team can make, and teams do not need to wait for a stoppage in play in order to make substitutions.  Whenever a player is tired, he can just skate to his team's bench and a teammate can sub on in his place.  As a result, when players are on the ice, they can give 100% of their effort without worrying about conserving energy (unless they are killing a power play, in which case the players on defense may not have an opportunity to skate to the bench).  By contrast, in football, only 3 substitutions are allowed per team per match.  As a result, players must conserve their energy.  If football allowed hockey-like, the game would be more action-packed and fast-paced.

For shoot-outs, have kickers kick from anywhere outside of the 18 yard box (or possibly further).  A shoot-out often referred to as "the lottery."  The reason is that, with kicks taken from 12 yards out, goalkeepers must guess which direction the shooter is going to kick in order to have any chance of saving the ball.  As a result, winning a shoot-out largely depends on luck.  If players were to shoot from outside the 18 yard box, goalkeepers would have  some chance of saving the kick without guessing.  As a result, winning a shootout would depend more on skill than on luck.

Make the goals slightly bigger.  Compared to other team sports, football is a rather low-scoring game.  Typically, matches end with 3 goals or fewer.  And, it is not at all rare for a match to end in a 0-0 tie.  I think it would make sense to experiment with making goals bigger so that the number of goals scored per match roughly doubled relative to its current level.  This increase would create more lead-changes without reducing the importance of a goal.

Suspend players that dive.  If an attacking player is fouled in an opponent's 18 yard box, his team is awarded a penalty kick.  Because it is much easier to score a penalty kick than it is to score from open play, attacking players often go to the ground without being contacted by a defender (i.e., dive), in order to give the impression that they have been fouled.  One way to reduce diving would be to have a committee of referees review videos of matches after they have completed.  If a player is deemed to have dived in this review, they could be suspended for a certain number of games.