Encyclopedia of Opinion
Question
Should VAR be used in football?
Position1 of 3›
Yes. VAR is a net positive to the game
Argument‹5 of 6›

VAR can create a more attacking game

VAR means that defenders will have to be more careful in their own penalty area. This should lead to more chances for attacking football to flourish, as attackers will be willing to try and take on defenders in the box rather than playing it safe.

The argument

The use of VAR in football will force defenders to be more careful in their penalty areas, this argument holds, because that is classically the field in which more mistakes are punished by the referee. A foul in open play is usually worth a free kick in a harmless position; the same foul inside the box is worth a penalty, so the penalty area is where the cost of a defensive error is highest and where the referee's judgement matters most. The introduction of VAR into the game changes the probability that such an error is caught. These mistakes are now more closely monitored by the video technology, which means a defender can no longer rely on an incident being missed in real time by an official with a single viewing angle. The expected cost of a marginal challenge therefore rises, even though the rules governing it are unchanged. The argument is explicit that this scenario only makes sense if one assumes that increased surveillance will lead to conforming behaviours by the defending players — that is, that defenders respond to closer monitoring by committing fewer challenges rather than by continuing as before. That assumption is stated rather than smuggled in, and the conclusion depends on it. If it does hold, the effect passes to the other side. Attackers facing defenders reluctant to make contact are in a better position than they were, so they will be more inclined to take on defenders in the box rather than trying to play it safe by recycling possession. More attempts inside the area means more shots, more penalties awarded, and more of the play concentrated where goals are actually scored. Because closer scrutiny of defending makes attacking the rational choice, the argument concludes that VAR can create a more attacking game and is a net positive to it.

Context

VAR stands for Video assistance referee and is a new way technology is used to help football referees on the field when they make decisions. They are mainly used for determining goals, penalty decisions, direct red cards or mistaken identity incidents. The video footage helps the referee to take a decision after viewing the video material. Anyhow, the use of VAR is controversially discussed as it could potentially underpin the role of the referee on the field.

Premises

[P1]VAR more closely monitors the penalty area, where defensive mistakes are most often punished, forcing defenders to be more careful. [P2] If closer surveillance makes defenders conform and play more cautiously, attackers will be more willing to take them on inside the box rather than playing it safe. [C] Because it encourages bolder attacking play, VAR is a net positive to the game.

Counter-arguments

VAR and the better surveillance of what the players do on the pitch will not alter their strategies. The defence will not modify their game which subsequently means that the game will not be more attacking.

Rejecting the premises

The elimination of one factor will not result in the fulfilment of its opposite.