VAR – How can it possibly be misinterpreted?

We have just witnessed a European Champions League semi-final reduced to a farce because of the way VAR is interpreted.

Not because the system is at fault, far from it.

It is a fantastic piece of technology that can be used to highlight a clear error by the on-field referee.

We have seen this used in other contact sports with no issues whatsoever.

As an example, in rugby, the referee gives an on-field decision to the VAR officials, who then take that into account when determining whether the correct call has been made according to the rule book.

There is no grey area within their regulations, and they are applied consistently.

Inconsistency Between Leagues and Europe

When VAR was introduced into football, it was initially rejected by the authorities in England, as Mr Riley, then head of PGMOL, did not want it.

He believed his officials were good enough without it and claimed they got over 94 percent of major decisions correct.

It was, I believe, two seasons before it was introduced into the Premier League, but not in the same format as in Europe, and that difference remains today.

The PGMOL and Premier League believed they could implement it in a better way.

Hence, we saw the situation in Madrid, where three penalty decisions by the referee were closely examined by VAR officials, applying different interpretations to those used in England.

The first, which led to Arsenal taking the lead, was correctly reviewed, and VAR ensured no clear error had occurred, allowing the referee’s decision to stand.

In this instance, the rules were followed, and VAR was used correctly.

Then Atletico Madrid were awarded a penalty that highlighted the stark contrast in how handball is interpreted between the Premier League and Europe.

This would not have been given in England, where VAR would likely have overturned it for being an obvious error, yet here it was used to confirm the decision.

On this occasion, I believe the Premier League interpretation is more reasonable, but in a European match, the officials applied the correct standard.

The Problem Is Application, Not Technology

We then come to the most contentious decision.

The referee was perfectly positioned to judge the challenge on Eze, standing just two yards away and directly in line with the incident.

He deemed it a clear foul and awarded a penalty, also booking the Atletico Madrid player.

The VAR officials reviewed the incident, as they should, to determine whether a clear error had been made.

Incredibly, they concluded the referee was wrong and instructed him to review the footage.

It reportedly took thirteen replays and several minutes before the referee changed his decision.

This was not an obvious error, and yet VAR is blamed for the failures of officials, both on and off the pitch.

I will not comment on how Atletico Madrid reacted to both Arsenal penalty decisions, or how that may have influenced the referee, but it is something UEFA should consider.

In summary:

1. The PGMOL remains out of step with Europe regarding the use of VAR and must either align with UEFA or demonstrate why its approach is superior.
2. VAR continues to be used inconsistently across football, but it must be recognised that the issue lies not with the technology, but with officials’ understanding of when and how to use it, while ensuring the on-field referee retains the final decision.

If that does not happen, the integrity of the rules will continue to be undermined, and incidents like the overturned penalty will persist.