The Video Assistant Referee (VAR) never seems to be out of the headlines in English football. The decision by German referee Deniz Aytekin to award Italy a late penalty in the international friendly at Wembley on Tuesday evening caused outrage among many fans and pundits in England.
It was a decision that meant the game finished 1-1 after Lorenzo Insigne scored the resulting spot kick in the 87th minute.
The main issue seems to be around the missuse of the phase "clear and obvious error," what that applies to and how you interpret the use of VAR.
What is a "clear and obvious error" in VAR?
It's a misconception with the phraseology which has now become common-place in the VAR discussion in England. It clouds the real issue and prevents people from fully understanding VAR protocols.
For instance, not once in the latest official VAR Implementation Handbook from the International Football Association Board (IFAB) is the phase "clear and obvious error" used. In fact, the only time the word "obvious" appears is in relation to "denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity."
The actual phrase in the Handbook is "was the decision clearly wrong?" -- though the wording may be updated in the next edition of the Handbook.
You need to understand the protocols that get to the decision-making point to grasp VAR. That crucial step is being missed by "clear and obvious error" always mentioned as a catch-all phrase.
What is the VAR protocol that led to the penalty?
The VAR will have looked at the footage after James Tarkowski and Federico Chiesa came together in the penalty area. It is the VAR's job to first decide if there has been a "very clear" error made.
If the VAR feels there has been a "very clear" error then he will (effectively) over-rule and direct the referee to award a penalty -- though the actual final decision lies with the on-pitch referee.
However, if the VAR does not think it falls into this description (or indeed if the on-pitch referee wants to view the footage himself), then he will ask the referee to perform an On-Field Review (OFR) himself.
An OFR should only be used for subjective decisions, like fouls. It should not be used for objective, or factual, decisions, such as offside and ball out of play. The only time an OFR can be used for offside is for the subjective element of a player in an offside position interfering with a goalkeeper.
What is an On-Field Review in VAR?
If advised for an OFR, the referee will watch the incident on a monitor at the side of the pitch.
It is important to note that the on-pitch referee will only be shown one camera angle of the incident, so as not to confuse and delay the decision-making process. Also, the referee is shown the incident in real time. The VAR handbook says a referee should "utilise slow motion and 'frame-by-frame' functionality for point of contact only."
It means that in the England game the referee will only have been shown a slowed down replay to confirm Tarkowski made contact with Chiesa.
Why did the referee decide it was "clearly wrong"?
This is another massively important point.
It doesn't matter if I think it was a foul, or a wrong decision. It doesn't matter if you do. Nor does it matter if Gareth Southgate, Alan Shearer or former referees like Mark Halsey think it was a foul.
The whole point is that the decision is referred to the on-pitch referee for him to decide, based on the replay, if he himself feels he has got the decision "clearly wrong."
It's a subjective call. Some will say it was a correct decision; some won't. But will we always get this if VAR is being used for fouls rather than only objective decisions.
The match referee now believes he has made the correct decision, and this is the key factor.
Was VAR protocol followed?
If VAR had over-ruled the referee without an OFR, then we could have questioned the protocol.
The key thing here is that, as noted in the handbook, "the referee's decision can only be changed if the video review shows a clear error."
Important point: the VAR did not over-rule the referee on the pitch. VAR told the referee to look at the decision himself using an OFR. That the referee then decided to award the penalty is purely his own decision.
So was it a foul?
Yes it can be judged as such. It is completely irrelevant if a player is not in control of the ball, or if the ball has run in front of him. Neither does it matter if a player appears to already be on the way down. You can still be fouled.
VAR got the decision right?
Yes, and most pundits now agree that while they may not be comfortable with awarding a penalty for a decision that does not seem to be a major injustice, it was in fact a foul.
And we want VAR to do this, get decisions right?
Many fans and pundits are concerned that, if we are analysing every single decision, the game will be stopping all the time. But the whole point of VAR is that is does look at every major game-changing moment -- goals, red cards, penalties. We only notice it when the on-pitch referee needs to stop the game. The VAR will have looked at the early incident involving John Stones and Ciro Immobile and decided it was not worthy of any kind of review.
What about the Italy players encroaching on the penalty?
The VAR has no remit to look at encroachment on a penalty kick, unless the player encroaching "scores or is directly involved in a goal being scored" or "prevents an attacker playing or being able to play the ball." Therefore there is nothing for VAR to decide as Insigne scored directly from the spot kick.
Did these officials know how to use VAR?
Yes, all officials were German, and the Bundesliga has had VAR all season. That said, as noted by Raphael Honigstein last month, "much controversy abounds about the exact rules of engagement."
Will VAR at the 2018 World Cup be a success?
It seems like this will be a World Cup too early for VAR. Coaches, players, officials, pundits and supporters just do not know or understand enough about it for it to be effective. There will be a lot of confusion -- and many of the referees will have had little practical experience of its use.