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 >

VAR will reduce cheating and fouling

Cheating should not be tolerated in football and reckless behaviour that can lead to injury should be limited as much as possible. When players know that they are always being watched, they should be less inclined to cheat or play danegously.
David Elleray Roque Mesa
< (2 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

The use of VAR in football means that the game is fully monitored by cameras that will more closely detect any foul play or cheating. The possibility for being punished for misconduct rises significantly as the decisions of the referee do no longer only rely on what he sees himself but also on the footage that is captured by VAR. Knowing this, the players should be more hesitant to strategically use cheating or foul play as they know that the risk of being caught increases with VAR. Inevitably, the cost of attempting to cheat goes up and makes it less attractive. This logic is transposed from other fields of our daily lives where camera surveillance is used to deter crimes from happening and to help provide evidence in cases where it happened despite the surveillance. Researchers have found that the presence of cameras does indeed decrease crimes from happening, there is for instance a more than 51 percent drop in crimes committed at parking lots. Even though this is a different field of application, the same results could be observed with the use of VAR in football. That would make the overall game fairer.

Counter arguments

Increased surveillance of players through VAR will not decrease the amount of cheating and foul play. VAR is unable to capture everything that happens on the field which leaves room for cheating and foul play. Furthermore, foul play is often not a premeditated act but an opportunity that can arise in a split second and is thus the result of an instinctive decision. Such decision-making is unlikely to be affected by VAR.

Proponents

Framing

Video surveillance will decrease cheating and foul play.

Premises

Surveillance results in conformity.

Rejecting the premises

Surveillance doesn’t alter behavioural patterns.

References

This page was last edited on Thursday, 1 Oct 2020 at 07:34 UTC

Explore related arguments