My first Publication Overtime November 2019 Merged PDF | Page 23

REFEREES WITH MICS ARE
VAR FROM THE ANSWER
Former Premier League official Matt Messias exclusively tells Overtime that football referees should not wear
microphones to explain decisions made by the controversial Video Assistant Referee system
Words Daniel DeFalco
H
aving refereed 85 Premier League games and
overseen several UEFA Cup fixtures between
2000 and 2005, Matt Messias knows better
than most the scrutiny that officials are under.
Every decision, regardless of its magnitude, is either
jeered or cheered by those in the stadium and analysed
with a fine-tooth comb by pundits on television.
Speaking exclusively to Overtime, the 55-year-old
reveals his views on Video Assistant Referees (VAR)
– the controversial new technology introduced in the
Premier League this season.
Official Premier League guidelines say that VAR
would be used to eliminate ‘clear and obvious errors’
and ‘serious missed incidents’, which was met with a
sense of optimism prior to the start of the season. The
idea being that referees were now equipped with the
tools they needed to make most decisions correct.
But one of VAR’s most significant criticisms is its
ambiguity. The pure elation fans feel after their team
scores a goal is often stifled with the frustration of a
lengthy VAR check, as those inside the stadium are
left in the dark regarding the decision’s progress.
With supporters desperate for the clarity of
refereeing decisions, particularly VAR reviews, to
be improved, the Premier League is facing calls for
officials to wear microphones. While this is a key
component in the way video reviews work in rugby
and cricket, Messias does not believe referees with
microphones are the solution to VAR’s flaws.
“No. And my reason is because footballers talk in
a different language to rugby players,” said Messias
when asked if referees should wear microphones. “You
would be able to pick up on the referee’s microphone
and you would hear everything that players would say
to the referee.
“Whilst it would be great to communicate like
rugby, and I think it’s fantastic and there’s real clarity,
the referees are calm; you do sometimes hear a player
swear every now and then. Then the TV commentators
have to say, ‘I do apologise if you heard that’, but they
would have to say that rather more frequently in
football,” he said.
“The TV commentators have to say,
‘I do apologise if you heard that’,
but they would have to say that
rather more frequently in football”
Football has a history of playing catch-up to other
sports when it comes to adopting new technology.
Hawk-Eye technology was first introduced in the
Premier League in 2013 to provide clarity over
whether a ball had crossed the goal-line. That was 12
years after it was launched in cricket and eight years
after tennis.
Messias believes that VAR should be adapted to be
more like the Television Match Official (TMO)
system used in rugby and the Decision Review
System (DRS) in cricket. Both forms of technology
Messias thinks the monitor (above) should be used by on-field
referees more often (Pic: SounderBruce, Creative commons)
matches.” Despite this, the sight of referees holding
finger to earpiece for one or two-minute periods, for
many supporters, occurs with too much regularity.
Before the start of the season, the Professional Game
Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) instructed referees
to use the monitors “sparingly”, but so far the Referee
Review Area is yet to be used in any game.
In response to whether referees should use the
pitch-side monitor more frequently, Messias has no
doubt that they are a key part of winning over VAR’s
critics.
“100 per cent, I think it should only be that – it
should just be the pitch-side monitor. I think the
managers will be saying ‘just let the referee go across
to the monitor and let him decide what needs to be
done’. And he doesn’t need to speak to another guy
because that other guy will have a different view of it,”
he said.
VAR will always divide opinion. It seems as if the
Premier League is a fair distance away from winning
over fans, managers and players as the Premier League
approaches its first quarter.
But with many aggravated fans hoping for VAR to be
ditched next season, Messias notes that the technology
is far from the finished product.
“It will be continually refined and developed until
it becomes something of more use to everybody with
greater clarity. It’s still in its teething process.”
“You have the referee’s opinion,
and the opinion of the guy
who’s judging the VAR might be
completely different”
are far more developed in terms of communication to
fans, compared to VAR.
Messias said: “I think in cricket and rugby it’s good
because the fans see what the referee sees. When the
referee goes to the TMO (television match official) the
fans see that as well. I like the idea that if the referee
has gone to VAR or if he has gone to judge it himself on
the TV monitor, there is no reason why the spectators
can’t see the same pictures that the referee sees.”
While the objective of VAR is to eventually arrive at
the correct decision, Messias raises concerns regarding
a possible confliction of views between the referee
and VAR operator. Does the constant reviewing of
decisions undermine the referee’s responsibility to
control the game?
“You have the referee’s opinion, and the opinion of
the guy who’s judging the VAR might be completely
different,” Messias said.
“My personal view is that the referee judges the
heat and tempo of the game and if he then feels ‘you
know what, I need to check that’, he then goes across
to the pitch-side monitor and he decides. Nobody else
[should decide],” he added.
The Premier League’s website states that “there
will be a high bar for VAR intervention on subjective
decisions to maintain the pace and intensity of the
23
Matt Messias (Pic: PA images)