Why the Ideology Behind the Rules of the Game Limit What VAR Can and Can’t Do

What are we arguing about when we argue about VAR?

To understand why VAR is giving so many fans a headache it’s
first important to understand how the rules of the game — and the
intentions behind them — intersect in ways we might not
realize.

Laws of the Game: Subjective vs. Objective

There are two different types of rules in football: subjective
and objective. The intensity of a tackle when it comes to serious
foul play is a subjective call (people can disagree),
while whether the ball touched a particular body part is an
objective call (it should be factually determined yes/no
based on the technology available).

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) meets
annually to discuss, among other things, rule changes for the
coming season. Often these changes involve simple clarity of
language to make rules easier to understand and enforce, while
sometimes these changes are substantial — as we’ve seen with the
handball changes over the past couple of seasons.

What many might not realize, however, is that changes in the
rules of the game almost always occur not to enforce some
recognized “spirit of the game,” but rather to limit, as much as
possible, the subjectivity involved in making certain
decisions.

In the minutes to IFAB’s 133^rd Annual
Meeting in 2019, David Ellerary clarified the reasoning behind the
change to the handball law.

“There is a desire to move away from decisions which are
subjective in interpretation (e.g. when an arm is in a natural or
unnatural position) and to bring clarity to when an offence is
committed and to when an offence is not committed. It was accepted
that handball is a significant grey area which will never be black
or white and suggested that the proposal seeks to give clarity in
regard to such situations.”

Photo
credit should read PAUL FAITH/AFP via Getty Images

But Why Limit Subjectivity?

This interest in removing subjectivity is actually logical: with
less subjectivity comes more consistency. When referees are asked
to determine if a foul breaks the threshold for a penalty
(subjective), it’s possible to have a range of valid answers
supported by interpretations of the language of the rules.

In contrast, when asked to determine if the ball made contact
with a specific part of the body deemed to be “handball” in
specifically defined game situations (objective), there should be
less variance — particularly at present, when there is a video
replay to consult, slowed down to almost frame-by-frame speed.

What many fans and pundits don’t realize is that “intent” has
been removed from the laws of the game whenever possible. The
2019/20 handball rules actively removed “intent” from the law:
while deliberate handballs remained an offense (never forget
Fernandinho’s guilty little face after he handled the ball on the
goal line in the City defeat that confirmed Liverpool as champions), now accidental handballs are
offenses too.

As last season’s rule change noted, a goal can’t be scored by an accidental
or deliberate handball, and it is also an offense “if a player
gains possession/control from their hand/arm and gains a major
advantage (e.g. score or create a goal-scoring opportunity).”

Basically, if an advantage is gained by handling (deliberate or
accidental), the player has committed a handball offense. To
clarify what “an advantage” means, the 2020/21 changes limit the offense to
“immediately” before a goal is scored/opportunity is created.
Therefore “it is not an offence if, after an accidental handball,
the ball travels some distance (pass or dribble) and/or there are
several passes before the goal or goal-scoring opportunity).”

Photo
by Chloe Knott – Danehouse/Getty Images

Unluckily for Pep Guardiola Manchester
City, Trent Alexander-Arnold’s “handball” at Anfield wasn’t an offense last season, and it’s even
less of one under the current rules.

The removal of “intent” is not limited to the handball rule. As
Dale Johnson pointed out following the lengthy debate around Lucas
Digne’s deserved red card in Everton’s
defeat to Southampton, whether a player intends to harm
another no longer matters in terms of the law.

It doesn’t matter if the challenge is accidental, what matters
is the “force and nature of the challenge.” Unfortunately for
Digne, attempting to amputate a player’s Achilles with studs is,
well, forceful, regardless of intent.

But Surely Intent Should Matter?

Why this concern with removing “intent”? Well, IFAB is
demonstrably dedicated to limiting subjectivity whenever possible,
and judging intent is a subjective quagmire: the only way to be
sure of a player’s intentions is to ask them (and have them tell
the truth). Beyond asking a player who in unable to lie, how could
intent be determined objectively?

On Television, the “intent” of tackles is discussed at length by
pundits while fans are treated to non-stop slow-motion replays of
the incident with each frame dissected in search of the truth (and
in search of content and contreversy to be debated).

Officials behind the laws of the game are so dedicated to the
limitation of subjectivity, though, that slow-motion replays are
reserved for determining objective calls to avoid slow-motion’s
long-proven effect of increased perceptions of intent
(incidentally, this effect is also recognized in courts of law).

Put simply, slow-motion makes challenges look worse than they
are, and tricks our minds into thinking that players have more time
to “premeditate” what they do in high-speed
situations.

Television presenters have no such limitations, which is why
crunching tackles are replayed for viewers and analyzed by pundits
in slow-motion even if this distorts the reality so much that it
cannot be used by referees. It gives us all much more to discuss,
to be sure.

Because intent can never be factually determined, even with
technological tricks, the rules of the game have been moving away
from use of “intent” for years. Indeed, when discussing the
handball changes in 2019/20, David Ellerary noted that the change
was aligned with the underlying goals of many recent rule changes,
as “the emphasis [is] being moved away from determining intent to
physical outcome.”

To remove the subjective issues around intent, the focus is on
outcome. Referees are less likely to make subjective errors when
all they have to consider is the forcefulness of a tackle or the
outcome of a handball rather than the intent behind it. Was it a
dangerous tackle? Did the team set up a chance following this
contact? Less room for differences of opinion means fewer
subjective errors.

How Does VAR Come Into Play?

When we argue about VAR, it’s often about subjective error (“how
did they not give a pen for Harry Maguire’s headlock on Cesar
Azpilicueta?”) or on how tiny margins are applied (“He was
offside by a toenail”).

IFAB agrees with our complaints about subjective errors: the
limiting of “intent” and other moves away from subjectivity is
meant to remove chances for these errors. Did Maguire unlawfully
impede Azpilicueta? Yes. Pen.

Photo
by OLI SCARFF/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

Of course, these errors are exacerbated by the quality of
official, so if English referees are comparably poor in quality, as
social media certainly suggests, there will be more subjective
errors (including process errors, like the missed review for the
Pickford challenge, because poor officiating teams fail to adhere
to VAR processes they should know).

The argument to be had about VAR, though, is largely about
objective calls. What fans wanted was correction of
drastic subjective errors (like the Maguire headlock) and missed
objective ones (like when Sterling was miles onside against Manchester City in 2013/14, but saw a goal chalked
off).

These complaints are very similar to those that brought in goal
line technology: José Mourinho probably wishes Hawkeye could have a
look at Luis García’s “ghost goal” (though if VAR were in place at
the time and the goal was ruled out for not crossing the
line, a correct review process would have ended with Petr Čech
being sent off for a last man foul on Milan Baroš and Liverpool
taking a pen, sorry José).

Unfortunately, when technology can be applied the belief is that
it has to remove gray areas. Given current IFAB ideology and rule
application, the idea that a naked eye would be used to judge
offside (which is currently measured using 3D modelling, not even video
replays) at a glance and overturn just obvious objective errors is
unthinkable given the technology available. “Fair,” for VAR, is the
removal of as much subjectivity as possible.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Fans who want less minutiae involved in decisions actually want
to add subjectivity where officials would say it doesn’t
currently exist — an argument that is a long uphill battle against
current officiating beliefs. While we perhaps all would like rules
to be written in the spirit of the game (“does the player gain an
unsporting advantage here?”), this isn’t an argument that overlaps
with IFAB’s preferred language and direction.

While I lean towards an ideal game where the laws are written
and enforced based on the spirit of the game — and in the knowledge
that players themselves certainly cannot adjudge margins so narrow
that they arguably challenge the frame rate accuracy of
VAR itself — we need to rethink our strategy if we want IFAB to
take us seriously. I have no answers I’m afraid, so I, too, will
continue to yell into the void (and maybe watch more football in
leagues that don’t use VAR…).

Nokia is a global leader in the technologies that connect people
and things. With state-of-the-art software, hardware and services
for any type of network, Nokia is uniquely positioned to help
communication service providers, governments, and large enterprises
deliver on the promise of 5G, the Cloud and the Internet of
Things.

Serving customers in over 100 countries, our research scientists
and engineers continue to invent and accelerate new technologies
that will increasingly transform the way people and things
communicate and connect.

We are recruiting to fill the position below:

Job Title: Senior Legal Counsel – CEWA

Ref No: 2000000FWP
Location: Nigeria

Job Purpose

• Lead all legal support to the business in dedicated major
  accounts in CEWA
• As part of the legal department’s dynamic resourcing plan,
  provide support to Nokia’s other regional business
• Providing legal advice on a wide range of agreements with the
  customers and other business partners
• Provide legal training and education to business colleagues on
  Nokia policies, commercial law, compliance and other relevant legal
  matters for the sub-region and company
• Run multiple legal risk management initiatives in the
  sub-region to install a positive, world class legal compliance
  culture and full adherence to internal and external governance
  requirements
• To review current processes in the organization, identify
  improvements and lead the change process
• Coordinate with all functions in identifying, developing and
  implementing improvements in line with Nokia standards, processes
  and policies

Key Deliverables:

• Unquestionable level of integrity with the ability to work as
  an enabler to the business in line with company policy and
  procedures
• Provide legal guidance and support to Nokia’s business for
  day-to-day activities and work with the CEWA and MEA L&C team
  as part of the legal department’s dynamic resourcing plan, to
  provide support to Nokia’s other regional business
• Reviewing, drafting and negotiating contracts with third
  parties
• Proactively manage legal risks arising from complex business
  transactions
• Supports ethics and compliance initiatives
• Keeps the Sales Teams informed about the changes in legislation
  and relevant legal topics affecting the business
• Provides legal guidance in tenders alongside the contract
  management and other functions
• Follow up of Company secretarial work.

Key Responsibilities / Primary Functions

• Acts as a source of expert current knowledge of all legal,
  ethics & compliance programs and supports the development of an
  effective and pragmatic compliance culture
• Initiates a communication program that ensures a clear
  understanding of legal compliance standards required of individuals
  conducting high risk activities in the business
• Assess level of compliance with established policies,
  procedures and standards, across the organization as well as
  adequacy of internal controls within business, financial processes
  and operations
• Performs proactive risk assessment to identify business
  processes in the sub-region and region which may represent a risk
  for the company, with an emphasis on financial, business controls
  and efficient business processes
• Responsible for reporting and escalating risks, legal issues
  and best practices
• Coordinate with all functions in identifying, developing and
  implementing improvements in response to legal requirements,
  legislation changes and company policy requirements

Skills Required and Key Competencies:

• Graduate Degree in Law / Jurisprudence from recognized
  institution in a civil code law and / or common law based
  jurisdiction
• LLM; other post graduate legal or business degree /
  specialization
• 8 – 12 years PQE
• Excellent English drafting and communication skills
• Experience of working in a multi-national or regional company
  legal department.
• Excellent academic record and working references /
  credentials
• Experience in ethics and compliance, Foreign Corrupt Practices
  Act and UK Bribery Act
• Experience in the IT, technology, projects, software,
  telecommunications industry.
• Work experience in the CEWA region
• Very strong individual contributor
• Strong leadership and business relationship skills
• Experienced in commercial, technology, IPR, business, labour,
  contract and competition law.
• Experienced in negotiating and drafting infrastructure and
  technology, business development, including those agreements
  covering a number of markets
• Excellent communication (oral and written) skills
• Fluent in written and oral English.
• Ability to interact effectively and professionally with all
  levels of management and third parties

Key Internal Interfaces:

• Member of the Key Account Management Leadership Team. 
  Effective contributing member of the CEWA, MEA and Global L&C
  teams.

Complexity:

• Ability to provide legal guidance and support to the business
  in a complex sector and region
• Balancing the willingness to support the growth agenda and the
  management of the legal risks arising from high risk market
  conditions.