VAR has been out for a little while now and opinions on it are still fierce. When it was first being discussed, I was 100% for it. The rules are the rules and if we have a way to make sure they are more accurately enforced, that can only be a good thing.

But then I saw VAR in practice in the 2018 World Cup. Let’s just say…it left a lot to be desired. There was no real understanding of how it actually worked or what could be reviewed. A clear flop from Eden Hazard led directly to a goal, but that wasn’t reviewed for some reason. They needed to do a better job communicating what VAR actually did, what rules it followed, and what we could expect from it. None of it was clear and it left a bad taste in my mouth.

Then came the 2019 Women’s World Cup. VAR was used, and used effectively, to make some truly game-saving decisions. The offsides that took away England’s equalizer against the U.S. was called because of VAR and was the correct call. The Rapino penalty in the Final that ended up being the game-winner was (correctly) awarded by VAR intervention.

As I’m sure you can tell by now, I’ve been back and forth on my support, or lack thereof, for VAR since its announcement. I don’t even know what to believe anymore. After the 2018 World Cup, I was fully, unequivocally opposed to it. Now…it’s safe to say I’m on the fence. I can see both sides.

Even on the fence, I’m drooping my legs over the “opposed” side. And that’s because of a fundamental, philosophical belief in what sporting rules should be. I think that’s what this whole VAR conversation boils down to. What is your philosophy of the ref?

In my opinion, there are two primary reasons for rules in sports.

1. To protect the players
2. To make sure the game is fair

We can see both of these in action in the two VAR decisions I already talked about. The called-back England goal was offsides, which is a rule that has nothing to do with player safety and is all about keeping the game fair. The Rapino penalty came from a high-boot call that was late and from behind, a clear danger to Alex Morgan, the player on the receiving end of the foul. Those are the two primary (really, only) reasons I can think of to have rules in soccer.

Protecting the players using VAR is hard because the dangerous play will have already been committed. Sure, it might deter other players from making dangerous plays in the future, but players can get seriously injured on completely legal plays as well. Using VAR to protect the players doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If a challenge is completely, blatantly dangerous, I’m hoping one of the four refs on the pitch will see it and call it. It’s not that hard to see dangerous plays in real-time. Sure, the foul on Alex Morgan was dangerous and was a foul, but it didn’t hurt her. If it had hurt her, like, say, if she was kicked in the face, that would have been seen and called.

This point may have got lost in the weeds. I’m not saying that fouls should cripple someone before they are called. I’m saying VAR won’t stop dangerous fouls from being committed and any that are actually seriously dangerous will be seen by one of the refs. Unless those refs are CONCACAF.

The next point, the fact that rules help the game be fair, is the one I’m iffy on. The England player might have been offsides, but did that really give her a major advantage? Was it an unfair play? By the letter of the law, yes, but if you have to pause the game and zoom in on player’s feet, how much of an unfair advantage was that, really?

This hit me when I was watching a Stanley Cup game a year or so ago. They zoomed into a player’s skate so close that you couldn’t even tell what the image was anymore. All to see if his skate was touching the line or hovering over it, to see if it was offsides or not. Now, I’m no hockey expert, but is it really a major advantage if a player’s skate is touching the line or hovering over it? How much of a headstart did he get because that one skate happened to be in the air half an inch? If we have to examine multiple angles, slow motion the footage, and zoom in on leg hairs, the offending player didn’t have an advantage. Any truly unfair advantage would be seen by the ref.

But then maybe those really, really close calls are actually minuscule advantages no matter how close it is. Who am I to say they aren’t? Maybe that hockey player really did get a headstart that led to a goal because his foot was half an inch in the air as opposed to on the ice.

Sure, refs are humans and they make horrendous mistakes that anyone could see with the naked eye. Should VAR be used for those? But then who makes the call whether or not an error was egregious enough to call back? That opens another can of worms.

I’m not an expert and I still don’t know how I feel about VAR. I’m interested to see it utilized more and see how it affects an entire season as opposed to a few games. But as of right now I’m saying no to VAR.