The reason is simple and has little to do with the rules professionals in the “Kölner Keller”: where people decide on rules that allow gray areas and perspectives, there are differences in the way they are viewed.
Majority of interventions correct
The fact is: the vast majority of interventions by the VAR are correct. In autumn, the DFB presented a first balance of the current season and spoke of 96 percent correct interventions.
I certainly don’t always agree with the DFB when it comes to VAR decisions. Nevertheless, in my opinion, he is correct in the vast majority of the interventions.
Implementation in many sports flawless
It is also a fact that video evidence often works without problems in sports. Ice hockey, tennis, American football, handball or even the high-speed sport of table tennis are just a few examples. The implementation and handling are different – the acceptance is given everywhere.
Just not in football. And this is where the problem with the VAR begins. The video evidence itself does not seem to be the problem, but its implementation in the German favorite minor matter.
Do not criticize the overall product
The displeasure of many critics is not based on the fact that video evidence makes no sense at all, but on the fact that it is currently non-transparent and hardly comprehensible. The so-called Kölner Keller should only intervene in the event of clear wrong decisions.
But when is a wrong decision a wrong decision? For example, why does the VAR not intervene in the clear foul on Jude Bellingham that has already been mentioned?
Transparency and consistency required
The 2018 World Cup showed how well video evidence can work: the referee looked at the situations himself on the sidelines and then made a decision on the pitch. The scene was also faded in for the viewers. This created transparency and trust – and earned FIFA a lot of praise for the handling.
If you want to make VAR understandable for the masses, consistency and transparency are imperative. The DFB still has some catching up to do, no question: there are no pictures on the screen for various reasons, there is no more precise explanation as to why the decision was made.
Invest time in game-changing scenes
But insertions like the 2018 World Cup have to come if you want to give the VAR acceptance. And speaking of transparency: Why not, for example, make radio traffic public when making decisions?
What cannot and must not be an argument in all of this: how long something takes. Where football professionals often waste time on the pitch with various rather unsportsmanlike actions, the referee and his team should at least be given the time to look at scenes that decide the game.
Ideas must not be taboo
And even this question must be allowed: Why not stop time during the video evidence? Here, too, other sports are ahead of football.
That would bring up more ideas: Are challenges for coaches – for example like in American football – maybe the better way for the VAR and the referee?! In American football, coaches have the ability to request video evidence twice per game.
Thinking outside the box would be good for football and could make the video assistant referee even better than he already is.