So VAR, so what?

Viewers of last night's BT Sport coverage of the FA Cup Third Round tie between Brighton and Crystal Palace may have noticed occasional mention of VAR or Video Assistant Referee. Well, I say "may" and "occasional", but if truth be told, the game was so dull that commentator Ian Darke spoke of little else (including the compelling insight that Bakary Sako's 25-yard equaliser for Palace was so straight and true that VAR wasn't needed to provide adjudication. Thanks for that.).

The curiosity around VAR last night was, perhaps, understandable, given that it was the first competitive game in England to have the technology available. As it turned out, it was only used the once, to help Andre Marriner adjudicate on Glenn Murray's 87th-minute winner for Brighton, but even then video pictures couldn't conclusively confirm whether the ball had brushed the forward's arm before crossing the line. It hadn't, but the fact that VAR and TV cameras still couldn't reach a decision shows that perennial arguments in football will still continue, even with the potential adoption of this system.

VAR is, for now, a limited technology solution for resolving disputes, being restricted to four types of incidents - goals, penalties, straight red cards and cases of mistaken identity. The game's legislative body, the International Football Association Board is expected to decide next March whether VAR will become a permanent part of the game. But despite is apparent limitations (with the caveat that the 'human' referee is still the absolute arbiter of any game), VAR is a step in the right direction.

Far too many games these days are dominated by refereeing controversies, and these are exacerbated by the fact that football is overscrutinised. Ever since Sky introduced up to 13 cameras positions at major games, with most now broadcast in high definition (including 4K resolution), there's very little that anyone watching around the world can miss. Which means that by the time a professional referee has made a judgement, it will have been dissected countless times by TV pundits and Twitter experts alike, giving very little room for simple human error. This, in turn, is leading to referees seeking stress counselling. Now, I know this won't garner that much sympathy from the rank and file football fan, but if there's something the game needs, it's engaged, competent referees whose professional capabilities match those of the multi-millionaire players they are employed to police. Technology can only help, and in this respect football can even be accused of being well behind the times. Many other sports have adopted technology to improve decision making, transparency and to resolve time-consuming disputes, so it’s about time the world's most popular sport follows suit. It won’t resolve some of the more subjective arguments, of course, but if it means reducing those tedious issues that put referees in the spotlight rather than the 22 players supposedly providing the active entertainment, that can only be a good thing.