VAR
is ruining soccer.
I wrote a post last summer, after the end of the World Cup, arguing that the introduction of Video Assistant Referees had led to a more mechanical and mindless style of refereeing. One manifestation was the dramatic spike in the number of penalty kicks awarded. VAR robbed referees of the discretion to make some of the context-sensitive judgments on which the game had always relied.
Since
that post was published, things only seem to have gotten worse. VAR-induced
delays at this summer’s Copa América and Women’s World Cup have unsettled the
rhythm of both competitions. A sport with no timeouts or commercial breaks now
finds itself repeatedly interrupted by VAR
reviews. (I am waiting for these interruptions to become sites of
advertising as well as tedium. “This VAR review is sponsored by Panoptico,
serving all your mass surveillance needs.”) Worse still, the outcomes of
multiple matches have been
swung
by VAR determinations that a goalkeeper left her line early during a penalty
kick, allowing the shooter a second chance after an initial miss. Scotland is
heading home from the World Cup after such a call was made last night.
VAR’s
supporters insist that “rules
are rules,” and these goalkeepers violated the rules. The official laws
of soccer currently state (on p. 121) that when a penalty kick is taken,
the goalkeeper “must have at least part of one foot touching, or in line with,
the goal line.” VAR seemed to show that the Scottish goalkeeper Lee Alexander had both feet off the line when the Argentinian midfielder Florencia Bonsegundo
struck the ball. Alexander was therefore in breach. Case closed.
Legal
realism, however, suggests an alternative perspective. In Karl Llewellyn’s classic
formulation,
there are “paper rules” and “real rules.” The paper rules are written down in
authoritative law books. The real rules, as Frederick Schauer puts it,
“are the ones actually applied by real officials in real institutional
settings.” While we may have cause to worry about especially large or arbitrary
gaps between the paper rules and real rules, the two pervasively come apart to
some degree.
Schauer
gives the example of a highway speed limit. In many jurisdictions, the official
speed limit—the paper rule—is 65 miles per hour. All the signs and statutes
indicate as much. But the real rule is often 74. Everyone knows that they won’t
receive a speeding ticket for going 66 miles per hour, even if they might be
given a ticket for going 75. Drivers adjust their behavior accordingly.
Soccer’s
penalty-kick rules for goalkeepers are similar—or at least, they used to be. Every
goalkeeper knew that she couldn’t take a giant step off the goal line well before
the ball was booted. But stealing a few inches of ground a fraction of a second early?
That was commonplace. Indeed, it was part of the art of good goalkeeping.
Perhaps in implicit recognition of the draconian
nature
of the penalty-kick sanction, the real rules permitted more flexibility than
the paper rules. Alexander’s subtle shimmy against Argentina was consistent
with the former though not the latter.
Yet
now, under VAR, the cops are doling out tickets to drivers going 66. And with
multiple cameras trained on every blade of grass, they don’t miss a single
infraction. No wonder England’s goalkeeper Karen Bardsley describes
the new enforcement regime as a “cruel and pedantic” crackdown that is forcing players
to unlearn deeply ingrained habits.
As I
noted in my previous post,
the president of FIFA Gianni Infantino likes to say that “VAR is not changing
football, it is cleaning football.” Llewelyn’s distinction helps show why
Infantino’s slogan is misleading. VAR has changed the rules of soccer, the real rules, not to
mention the flow and feel of the game.
Is
the added “cleanliness” worth it when goalkeepers try to inch off the line? At least
when it comes to putting speed cameras on the streets, there may be benefits to
public safety and public coffers. Yet most people nevertheless hate speed
cameras, for good
reasons, and the use of VAR to close the gap between the paper rules and
real rules of penalty kicks strikes me as even harder to justify. Simply asserting
that “rules are rules” obscures much and resolves little.