VAR, or video assistant referee: how do you feel about it? Do you think it's a technological boost to the game that reduces the impact of human errors by reviewing and "fixing" bad calls? Or do you think they remain as imperfect as the pre-VAR days because they are, ultimately, human beings as well?
The explanation and admission of an error caused a critical mass of scalding hot opinions all around the world, and, as such, we're taking a moment to ask our writers about VAR, how far it has come and how far it still has to go to live up to expectations.
First, the big question: how do you really think VAR is working? Do you like it?
Mark Ogden: I don't like it, but it is working in the sense that decisions that would previously have been missed, or given incorrectly in pre-VAR times, are now being dealt with correctly the vast majority of the time. The Díaz goal is an example of the system suffering a catastrophic failure, but the failure is a human one rather that of the VAR technology.
My issue with VAR is that it has created an unrealistic pursuit of perfection. Every decision must be correct, and there is absolutely no margin for error. But football isn't like that. Nothing is perfect.
Referees and their assistants can make mistakes too, but the technology has taken that human element away -- until the VAR referee misses a flag being shown and gets it wrong, as happened with Liverpool. I don't want to see offsides scrutinised to decide whether a forward was a millimetre offside, but that's what we have with VAR.
Dale Johnson: What Mark says is correct about the pursuit for perfection in one sense, but the real issue is that everyone's perception of perfection is different. Take the penalty Arsenal had overturned against Manchester United last month. I ran a social media poll on that decision and 73% of the responders felt it wasn't a penalty, yet opinion was exactly 50-50 on the VAR intervening to overturn it. So where does the VAR really get involved?
As the vast majority of decisions in this sport are subjective, referees aren't going to agree on many of them, let alone fans with a bias towards their team. And that means the desire for the game to achieve ultimate consistency is a pipe dream, because every incident is based upon an individual's opinion.
Julien Laurens: Let me start with the subjective/objective part of the game. Offside calls are not subjective: either a player is off or he is on. VAR is helping them in that sense, although many other decisions are down to interpretation.
Which takes me to my point: VAR is good for the game. I like it. And it works unless it is done by incompetent people, like it was at Tottenham. What were Darren England and Dan Cook doing to not see that the linesman had flagged offside? Playing Uno? Having tea? Scrolling on social media? Had they fallen asleep? It's unbelievable to think that they made such a terrible, embarrassing, shameful mistake because they thought the goal had been given!
Until VAR is operated by competent people, mistakes like this will happen again.
play
0:46
Should Díaz's goal have stood in Tottenham vs. Liverpool?
James Olley: Well, Juls, apparently the VARs involved in this case had been officiating in the United Arab Emirates 48 hours earlier and only arrived back in London on Friday morning. It is impossible to conclusively determine whether fatigue led to such a big mistake, but this is a particularly awkward look for the Premier League, especially given they pay top officials around half what they earn in LaLiga, for example.
VAR will always be controversial to an extent because, as everyone has essentially said, it is trying to apply a definitive verdict in a subjective game. Football is nothing without its imperfections. Trying to reduce officiating mistakes is still the correct target, so getting rid of the technology altogether would be a backward step. But either an "umpire's call" element has to be introduced -- e.g., the bar for overturning the referee's decision is very high -- or we accept that the days of the on-field officials having the final say is over. The whole exercise of going to the monitor is farcical.
The only thing I would add to anyone claiming a conspiracy theory: what undermines VAR is incompetence, not some sort of secret cabal trying to ensure one team suffers or another gains an unfair advantage.
Rob Dawson: I don't like it, but now it's here, I think -- for the most part -- it does its job. Obviously, that might be hard to understand just a couple of days after probably the worst VAR mistake since it was introduced!
My issue is that it was brought in without a clear idea of what it was trying to achieve. Is the technology there to reduce obvious errors, or is the ultimate goal to get rid of all mistakes? The first one is doable but, as Mark and Dale say, the second is impossible.
It would be interesting to know, if we could go back, how many football fans would vote for the introduction of technology knowing what they do now. Many supporters say celebrating a goal isn't the same now because you never really know whether it's going to stand, while match-going fans are still being kept in the dark about what's being looked at when decisions are being reviewed. Both of those are bad things overall.
Let's focus for a moment on Tottenham vs. Liverpool. What (if anything) can be done about the damage after the fact? And it's worth noting that while Liverpool were wronged in this instance, it can happen to any club. And it does happen to plenty of clubs.
Ogden: Let's be realistic -- this is all about one mistake in the heat of the moment. And yes, it has happened to other clubs and will continue to happen to other clubs.
There is nothing that can be done after the event. Let's just say that the VAR team realised their mistake five seconds after the restart and decided to tell the referee to halt the game to rectify it. Great idea, but then that would open the door for every team to demand the same if, or when, they are on the wrong end of an incorrect decision.
In terms of what happened at Spurs vs. Liverpool, what was the assistant VAR doing? Why didn't he say: "Hang on, you've got that wrong?" Are officials prepared to contradict each other, or are they just all so terrified of speaking out that they say nothing?
Johnson: The real issue here is the damage to any lingering trust and confidence in VAR in the Premier League. The independent stats say decisions are getting better, but howlers like this -- along with the failure to award the penalty to Wolves at Man United -- completely undermine that and take a sledgehammer to any progress.
Referees are fighting a losing battle as it is, because everyone hates them and thinks there's an agenda against their team. But Liverpool's complaint about "sporting integrity" cannot go anywhere. As Mark says, you cannot set a precedent with this. Should Wolves ask for a replay? What about Arsenal with the "offside" goal Brentford scored last season? The list of challenges over errors would be endless.
Laurens: Nothing will happen. Liverpool can say that "they are exploring all options" as much as they want, but nothing will happen. The game won't be replayed, they won't get a point given to them retrospectively. You just suck it up and move on. When refs' chief Howard Webb calls you to apologise, you make your feelings known, then hope that at some point later in the season, karma gives you a generous penalty to make up for Saturday's blunder!
By the way, since Webb took over PGMOL -- and I like Howard a lot (full disclosure, we used to do a show together) -- it feels as if there are VAR issues, apologies and statements all the time now. It might be just because Webb wants transparency so he feels the need to say sorry every time his team makes a mess. But the level of refereeing and of VAR so far this season is low. He needs to sort it out quickly, otherwise we will start thinking he is part of the problem.
Olley: Jurgen Klopp was unusually calm in his postmatch interview, so the statement Liverpool put out 24 hours later was even more surprising given the time to reflect. Calling the game's sporting integrity into question is something they might come to regret in time, as wronged as they were at Tottenham.
This was a catastrophic procedural error that should join the rich and varied annals of hard-luck stories all clubs have. Nothing more. But two points arise from this for me: firstly, the Premier League opposed VAR initially on the grounds of the length of time it took to make decisions. They might still be rushing things as a consequence. The idea that nothing can be revisited once play restarts should be scrapped. (Admittedly, it would be a difficult conversation with the IFAB.) A grace period of a further minute, in order to get to the right decision, might be enough.
And secondly, it makes the case for semi-automated offsides even stronger. The World Cup used it effectively. So does the Champions League. The Premier League has resisted it. If consistency is the primary concern, that needs to change.
Dawson: It was a howler and should be treated as such. You can't rip up VAR because of one horrific mistake; it's just one of those things. You just have to accept it and move on. That, obviously, won't be much comfort to Liverpool fans who are rightly fuming, but unfortunately that's life.
Whatever happens with refereeing in the Premier League, or anywhere across the world, you're never going to cut out mistakes completely and there will always be awful, indefensible outliers like we saw at Tottenham. You can only pray it doesn't hurt your team.
Ogden: It's a good thing because it shows, most importantly, that this was a genuine mistake and an example of poor communication. From hearing the audio, it is obvious there are plenty of areas where the process can be improved: clearer communication, a need for speed -- but not haste -- and better terminology. Forget "check complete" and robot-speak; just say, "the goal was onside / offside" to suit. And praise is due to the unnamed video operator who spotted the error and made the officials aware of it. He did his best to halt the mistake, but alas, it was too late.
