Trials for Affordable Football Video Support System to Be Extended

The testing phase for a more affordable substitute for football’s video assistant referee (VAR) is set to be prolonged. This experimental system grants managers two opportunities to challenge decisions per match, utilizing pitchside monitors for video assistance. Ifab, the sport’s rule-making body, has expressed satisfaction with the initial outcomes of the ‘football video support’ system’s trials, which took place during the Women’s Under-17 World Cup in October. This system is specifically engineered for competitions where match coverage involves a maximum of four cameras, contrasting with the extensive multi-camera setups employed in prominent leagues. Such competitions would encompass games within the English Football League and the National League. The International Football Association Board (Ifab) has not yet determined the specific locations for the expanded trials, which are scheduled to commence next season. David Elleray, Ifab’s technical director and a former English top-flight official, indicated that the extension would probably occur in “a smaller country” or a setting akin to “league three in Italy.” Managers would have the authority to initiate a challenge, prompting the on-field referee to review the disputed incident on a monitor located pitchside, with footage provided by a video technician. Similar to the rules in tennis and cricket, if a challenge proves successful, the manager would retain both of their allocated challenges. Conversely, if the challenge is unsuccessful, one challenge would be forfeited. Patrick Nelson, chief executive of the Irish Football Association, stated: “With the best will in the world, VAR will only ever be affordable at the top levels in some countries – and in some other countries it won’t be affordable at all.” He further explained, “This system would be available for games that are only covered by maybe one, two, three or four cameras.” Nelson added, “That would include lots of leagues around the world and it goes three or four levels down a pyramid. It really democratises the idea of supporting referees to make better decisions.” Ifab perceives a dual advantage to this system: beyond its lower cost, it also reduces the number of officials necessary for its operation. This aspect is particularly significant in regions with a limited pool of appropriately qualified referees. Nevertheless, the concept of a hybrid system for major leagues, combining VAR for decision-making with the introduction of a manager’s challenge, has been dismissed. Elleray commented, “There’s no reason to have challenges with VAR because the video match officials check every single incident.” Ifab also holds the view that the authority to initiate challenges should reside with the manager or coach on the sideline, rather than with the players. Elleray further elaborated, “You wouldn’t want the referee to be pressured every five seconds by a player saying ‘look at this, look at this, look at this’. So it’s down to the coach to make that choice of when to make a challenge.” He concluded, “We can all think of examples where you see a still picture somewhere from a single camera and say ‘maybe the referee hasn’t spotted that one – and that’s a clear offside’. Or ‘that isn’t offside and they’ve given offside’.”