AFTER a recent routine spring clean of the household finances, I was confronted with a raft of unfair, skewed, politically motivated figures: an inordinate number of exorbitantly priced takeaway coffees, a greasy pole of purchases from a High Street bakers’ franchise, and a consortium of subscriptions to premium entertainment platforms.
How to put a positive spin on such frivolous spending? It could have been much worse, I argued. You can probably imagine how that was received.
Yet this was the apparent conclusion to the latest VAR independent panel review by the Scottish FA. The governing body's confirmatory statement yesterday regarding its latest findings on “key match incidents” could be summarised as: yes, we made a few mistakes, but the percentage of correct decisions made by referees rose.
READ MORE: VAR review reveals number of incorrect Scottish Premiership decisions
But dig a little deeper into the six paragraphs of “data” summarised in this statement and you will be left with more questions than a married couple during a cost-of-living crisis; the one our 12 Premiership clubs need to ask themselves at the end of the current campaign, meanwhile, is this: is the £1.2m outlay for this particular video streaming platform really necessary?
“Following the conclusion of the pre-split SPFL Premiership fixtures in the 2023/24 season, the VAR Independent Review Panel (IRP) have met to consider Key Match Incidents (KMIs),” the statement triumphantly begins. If we pick away at the jargon, this refers to the first 33 groups of fixtures of the Premiership season before the league splits for its final five rounds. The “KMIs” are incidents identified as having affected the outcome of matches and you can perhaps surmise these have been selected for review on the basis of their being contentious.
“The panel comprises former players, managers and coaches, guided by experts on the Laws of the Game,” the statement continues. The identity of any of these individuals is shrouded in mystery. Indeed, “experts on the laws of the game” sound menacingly phantom. Are these cloaked figures referees? FIFA officials? Pub-quiz masters? Who knows.
“In the opinion of the IRP, based on incidents requested by the panel or submitted for consideration, 26 KMIs have been adjudged to have reached an incorrect outcome since the start of the season,” reads the self-flagellating declaration. While the figure is based on the “opinion” of a panel, and only refers to a cross-section of contentious decisions presented to it, there are those on various sides of the Scottish football spectrum who have already equated this anomaly to confirmation that their team has been wronged in some way.
“To date, there have been a total of 1181 VAR reviews conducted in the SPFL Premiership. Whilst the majority of these are silent checks of on field incidents which require no intervention, 76 have resulted in on-field reviews (0.4 on-field reviews per match) while another 36 have been factual overturns (ie offside, inside/outside penalty area).”
This is a particularly problematic passage. While the panel’s remit was to consider a narrow cross-section of “key match incidents” selected on the basis, presumably, that there was something in them worth re-assessing, this reference to the whole number of reviews brings in a figure in the thousands which only serves to abstract the “data” almost beyond comprehension.
Does "to date" mean since its introduction during the previous season? Since the start of the current season? Since the date of the statement's release? And the most outlandish and potentially revelatory phrase of all is this “36 have been factual overturns”. Factual? Offside? Really?
READ MORE: 'The wrong way': Van Bronckhorst on regret of Rangers exit
The job of an assistant referee, to simultaneously conclude whether a player is beyond the last defender with a part of the body that can play the ball at the same time as judging the exact instant the ball has left the foot of their team-mate, is no enviable task. Yet, despite these apparent claims to the contrary, still-frame, two-dimensional images are also unable to establish these variables to any “factual” certainty. This aspect of VAR's application (and, indeed, justification) is pseudo-science.
Now more “facts” and figures: “90.3% of on-field decisions are considered correct by the IRP, increased to 97.8% when including VAR interventions.” What these percentages are of is unclear: the “KMIs” referred to? The 1181 VAR checks? Every decision made in every match ever? The mind boggles. But the intended message is clear: VAR works. VAR is worth it. You can't live without VAR. It's like that barrage of messages you receive reminding you of how you can't live without Netflix, Amazon Prime or Disney+ whenever you muster the courage to cancel one of their expensive subscriptions.
The statement closes: “Scottish FA Referee Operations shared these statistics to the Premiership clubs on Wednesday morning as part of an update on the performance of VAR in Scotland.” The “statistics” offered here are of the junk-science variety, unfortunately. While the transparency and accountability sought in reviewing the implementation of VAR in its still fledgling presence in Scottish football is generally to be welcomed, the polemic, self-affirming, I-told-you-so conclusion offered here – the accuracy of refereeing decisions has increased to close to 100 per cent since VAR’s introduction – is about as scientific as the exit poll for one of Vladimir Putin’s Russian general elections.
Perhaps instead of “KMIs” and “IRPs” it should be RIP to VAR. If it’s a spring cleaning of erroneous spending habits Scottish football is looking for, they should just scratch that expensive video technology subscription from their direct debit statement.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel