Home Categories About
argument top image
Should VAR be used in football? Should VAR be used in football?
Yes. VAR is a net positive to the game Yes. VAR is a net positive to the game
No. VAR has made football worse No. VAR has made football worse
Yes, but something needs to change Yes, but something needs to change
VAR makes the game fairer VAR makes the game fairer
VAR will reduce cheating and fouling VAR will reduce cheating and fouling
VAR can create a more attacking game VAR can create a more attacking game
Normal referees make too many mistakes Normal referees make too many mistakes
Goal-line technology in football was a great success Goal-line technology in football was a great success
VAR should lead to less complaining VAR should lead to less complaining
Fans can no longer celebrate goals in the same way Fans can no longer celebrate goals in the same way
Mistakes are part of the game Mistakes are part of the game
VAR kills the passion of the game VAR kills the passion of the game
VAR takes too long VAR takes too long
Football is too free-flowing for VAR Football is too free-flowing for VAR
VAR can't review everything VAR can't review everything
VAR could be fixed if it allowed for the 'benefit of the doubt' VAR could be fixed if it allowed for the 'benefit of the doubt'
VAR is being deliberately sabotaged in England VAR is being deliberately sabotaged in England
Video review has been a success in other sports Video review has been a success in other sports
Debate Mini Map

Should VAR be used in football?
Back to question

Yes. VAR is a net positive to the game

(1 of 3) Next position >

Normal referees make too many mistakes

It's impossible to expect referees to get every decision correct while watching a match at full speed, often from bad angles. VAR, on the other hand, can avoid these mistakes.
Marijan Kustić
< (4 of 6) Next argument >

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.

The Argument

VAR is a crucial tool to enhance the capabilities of the referees on the pitch to assess a situation. A traditional referee has to be highly mobile on the pitch to be able to see what is happening between the players. However, it is a physically demanding task that impairs his ability to see everything, given that he only has one pair of eyes to oversee an area of 7140 m². Additionally, he can only ever focus on one situation at the same time which prevents him from being able to see all possible mistakes that are made by the players. VAR is a good technology to help the referee identify more mistakes and with more proof. It captures incidents from different angles and allows for them to be replayed, even at different speeds. This allows a better fact-driven assessment of decisive situations that would otherwise create unnecessary controversy. The referee can back his decisions and the latter become more transparent.

Counter arguments

VAR is not necessarily able to correct all the possible mistakes of the referee on the pitch. It has a margin error of up to 38,8cm (14 inches) which proves that it is less effective than its proponents claim. It doesn’t allow for fully certain decision making due to the possibility of multiple interpretations. The interpretations of the referee can then again be seen as mistakes.

Proponents

Framing

VAR will decrease the mistakes that are made by referees.

Premises

Technology enhances the capacities of humans.

Rejecting the premises

Technology doesn’t improve humans.

References

This page was last edited on Thursday, 18 Jun 2020 at 10:00 UTC

Explore related arguments