‘The VAR gives a false sense of security’ – NRC

Due to an outstretched toe by Dusan Tadic and the heel of Brian Brobbey, Ajax missed the KNVB Cup last season. Video referee Dennis Higler was relentless from behind the screens in Zeist. The Ajax players stood in the Kuip in Rotterdam with their limbs perhaps a millimeter over a drawn line. That was not allowed. Offside twice. Two goals disallowed. The cup went to PSV, which won the final 2-1. Was that right? “I don’t really know,” says Gerard Sierksma (77), emeritus professor of Econometrics and Sports Statistics at the University of Groningen. “And therein lies the problem. The VAR could not say that with complete certainty. And that meant that the supporters had to make do with a dubious result. The certainty that the VAR suggested was a false certainty. This is still rife.”

Sierksma receives in the Van der Valk Hotel in Groningen. Within cycling distance of his home and work. With a cappuccino, a glass of water and a few white sheets of paper on the table in front of him, he gives a kind of mini-lecture about the operation of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR). Or rather, why the use of technological tools to demonstrate offside falls short. “I love technology and I am a football fan,” explains Sierskma. “Mathematics and physics are all about exact science. Football is about honesty and experience. If a goal is disallowed, you as a spectator want to see conclusive and convincing evidence of this. Preferably on large signs in the stadium itself. After four years of VAR in the Eredivisie, we are still not that far.”

1966 World Cup Final

Sierksma goes back in thought for a moment. To the time before VAR. For example, to the World Cup final of 1966, in which the Englishman Geoff Hurst scored against West Germany from the bottom of the bar. At least according to the judgment of the Swiss referee Gottfried Dienst. It was hard to tell with the naked eye whether the ball had completely crossed the line. Over the years, questionable decisions became more frequent. Referee Pavel Khazakov decided in 1973 in the last World Cup qualifying match that Belgium wrongly disallowed a goal by Belgium for offside. Not Belgium, but the Netherlands went to the 1974 World Cup. And in 2002, viewers saw linesman Ronald Kloeg blunder in the cup final between Ajax and FC Utrecht. Ajax player Wamberto was clearly offside when he equalized in the final phase. The cup then went to Amsterdam.

“Millions of fans saw on television that it was offside, only the referee on the field did not. The average number of goals per game has fallen from about four to two over the past fifty years. One foul by the referee can decide the match. That became less and less desirable,” says Sierksma. “It was only natural that help would come from technology.”

It became the VAR. FIFA, the global federation of national football associations, decided to test the use of the technology in March 2016. Six months later, the scoop followed at the international match between Italy and France. Two years later, VAR was introduced in the Eredivisie. With the aim of supporting the arbitration. The VAR can intervene in four different situations: 1. Goal or no goal. 2. Whether or not a penalty kick. 3. Whether or not a direct red card. 4. Mistake of identity when giving a red or yellow card. Sierksma thought about the VAR on her own from Groningen. “Football had to be fairer. Not only the referee, but also the spectators would get clarity about decisions. But that didn’t happen. On the contrary. There are still questionable decisions. And sometimes long breaks are needed to review the VAR images. The combination of these is deadly for football. The emotion disappears.”

According to the econometrician, crucial mistakes were made from the start. Especially when it comes to offside or not. To determine this, the VAR drew the offside line in the computer image at the second to last player of the defending team (usually the keeper is the last player) at the time the ball was played. Next, the position of the possibly offside attacker was looked at. If that attacker passed the VAR line, it was offside. That seems obvious. “But that is not it. And not at all for a mathematician and physicist who has graduated,” Sierksma explains. “There is a misinterpretation. If you are going to measure something, it will never be 100 percent accurate. You are dealing with margins of error in the system. The lines drawn are often a bit doctor shivering lines. Logical because everything moves and the camera almost never captures a situation vertically. And when it comes to millimeters, it is clear that the crossing of the VAR line is within the margin-of-error of the measurements and nobody knows whether or not the attacker was punishable offside. The VAR line is in fact a gray strip. In this way it is not possible to determine with certainty that someone is offside.”

Traffic fine

Sierksma is shifting. He takes a sip of his cappuccino and briefly changes tack to clarify his argument. “Let’s look at the measurements of traffic fines,” he says. The maximum speed in built-up areas is usually 50 kilometers. Sometimes a counter of one car shows 51 and another 52. While the radar measures 53. So there is a margin of error. To put an end to all uncertainty, the police sets the limit at 54. If you touch that speed, you will be fined. There is no arguing that you have passed the 50 kilometer limit. If you drive according to the measurements 53, you get the benefit of the doubt. So the gray area here runs up to 54 kilometers per hour.”

A year after the VAR was put into operation, Sierksma took his theory to Zeist. There, the emeritus professor tried to convince those involved – including some of his former students – to adapt the system. “My impression was that they understood me. But nothing happened. I think the contracts with the company that makes the software for the VAR were closed for a long time.”

The Dutch VAR adjusted the method in 2020 after all. Since then, two lines have been drawn, a blue one at the defender and red at the attacker, each with a width of five centimeters. If the ‘strips’ touch each other on the computer images, then no offside is given. If there is a line of light in between, yes. The tolerance margin, which takes into account the measurement errors, is now ten centimetres. According to Sierksma, this is certainly an improvement, but still insufficient to provide 100 percent certainty. “I don’t know whether they have adapted it in response to my story,” Sierksma says. “Worse is that the spectator understands little about the ‘red and blue lines’, while it was the intention that the fans see and understand the reason for the decision. Not so. The spectator of a club whose goal is canceled should be satisfied with the belief in VAR.”

World Cup in Qatar

According to Sierksma, it is simply important to exclude any uncertainty. And it revolves around the two concepts that spectators understand: speed and clarity. Sierksma has looked with surprise at a new system of semi-automatic offside technology, which will make its appearance at the World Cup in Qatar in November. A chip in the ball must make it clear exactly when it will be played. With that data, the images from cameras and the use of artificial intelligence, offside must be determined with certainty. Image of the evidence is displayed in the stadium. Sierksma shakes his head. “I have studied it. I have no faith in it. A chip in all balls could be an improvement. The disadvantage is that this comes with a price tag. The rest is for the time being marketing with the pinnacle of fencing with artificial intelligence. The spectator is still fooled with a false sense of security.”

Sierksma takes a white sheet and starts drawing lines on an imaginary football field. “It can all be really simple and cheaper. Just start working with meaningful tolerance margins, which make the ball chip obsolete. Mark the second to last defender and draw the offside line in the image, plus a gray tolerance strip of one foot. Next, picture the attacker who may be offside. Obviously within the gray area: no criminal offside. At the slightest doubt: don’t hesitate any further, offside. After all, with uncertainty at the far border, you are far enough away from the VAR’s offside line. In other words, the car will certainly drive faster than 50 kilometers. And that is what you communicate with the spectators. This does not alter the fact that supporters will always continue to discuss. Fans simply look through colored glasses. And that is precisely why it is important that the decision of the VAR is shown quickly and clearly and is beyond any doubt.”