This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on July 22, 2019 - July 28, 2019

Laws are like sausages,” said Bismarck. “It’s better not to see them being made.” That football is now making up laws as it goes along could be why some fans have mixed feelings about the coming English Premier League (EPL) season.

Just three weeks before the big kick-off, there is also a sense that the title race could be between the same two runaway horses, Manchester City and Liverpool, as last time. But the more worrying cloud on the horizon is all those rectangles that referees will soon be drawing in the sky.

Yes, the video assisted referee (VAR) will make its long-awaited debut in the most watched and rigorously scrutinised league in the world. Proponents say it is a long overdue step into the 21st century as rugby, tennis and cricket have used technology for decades. Opponents maintain that pressing the rewind button too often will throw a sizeable spanner into the flow of the game.

But as the stakes have become higher and technology smarter, “the ball is round, referees are human” excuses ring increasingly hollow when errors occur. They sound the same to wronged billionaire investors as to all-seeing fans, so the game finally bowed to the inevitable.

However, like an over-zealous vigilante, VAR has so far caused as much controversy as it has tried to solve. It has prised open Pandora’s box and the doubters are already saying their worst fears are being realised.

The main complaints are that it is nit-picking and a passion killer while even a staunch supporter like The Times’ Henry Winter warns: “Care must be taken to ensure that VAR does not become a monster which destroys the joy of the game.”

Its interventions in the recent Women’s World Cup and Copa America caused outrage and fuelled doubts that you mess with football at your peril — especially in the all-guns-blazing EPL. Spiking the guns here hardly bears thinking about and is why it will be the ultimate test of a system that even its advocates acknowledge is still being refined.

So I sought the views of the man responsible for administering it, Lukas Brud, the secretary of the International Football Association Board (IFAB), the Zurich-based body that determines the laws of the game. He was good enough to give me an exclusive hour of his time.

We kick off with offside which, he feels, “is a black-and-white issue. If we have VAR, do we really want to allow a goal to be scored from an offside position? If it is accurately detectable that a player was offside and gained an advantage, how are we supposed to go with this?

“In goal-line technology,” he continues, “if the ball is one millimetre behind the goal line, it’s a goal. If it’s not, it’s not a goal. These are factual decisions and it is very difficult to find room for interpretation with these.” Outside of changing the offside law itself, perhaps, but that is for another discussion.

I ask if he is concerned that some fans and media appear to be turning against VAR? He says: “Of course we are concerned. We are aware, we do social media listening. It is clear to us from whatever survey we do that people who are against VAR have been disadvantaged by it. If something happens that they don’t like, they are against it. But if VAR helps their team win for a good reason, no one is complaining.

“We have done surveys and the majority is for VAR. If you look into the outcome of the use of VARs — and this is really, really important — we take a full 350-match season in any given competition, before VARs, you had about 40 major mistakes. With VAR, we have one or two.”

The statistics are overwhelming and inarguable — except by an altogether different line of thinking: the emotional case that VAR risks destroying “the joy of the game”. I put it to him that even the orgasmic moment of celebrating a goal could be in jeopardy if there’s a spate of overturning. And that an especially contentious overrule might spark crowd trouble.

“For me this emotional argument is difficult,” he says. “I understand it and I do not disagree with what you are saying, but this is only one side of the medal [sic]. The other side is the positive outcomes of using VAR and we have had no reports to date that there have been any fan troubles in stadiums because of VAR. If this were the case, we would take it very seriously but, so far, there has not even been a hint of it.”

By now he knew I was more VAR-sceptic than mere devils’ advocate, an analogue to his digital. The sceptic argument is that it is playing with fire to tamper with the very essence of football for marginal gains; Brud is saying the gains are substantial and worth the risk of getting fingers burnt in the beginning.

“It’s not perfect,” he acknowledges, “but do we want to have 40 errors in a season or do we want to have one or two and accept some delays and misunderstandings? We are working with the associations and trying to improve the communications because we know how important it is not to keep the fans in the dark. This is ongoing as we are still at the beginning of using VAR.

“We are already seeing many [other] benefits: where VAR is in place we have way less simulation, which has caused major issues in terms of time wasting. We have way fewer yellow and red cards. VAR has worked as a deterrent for those situations as well.”

VAR got most of its negative headlines last season after a change in the hand ball law. When I said players had joked that they would have to have their arms amputated to avoid offences, he was not amused. “That is absolute nonsense. The change on hand ball — even though it’s very complex — is probably the most sensible I have seen.

“We have changed the law to allow the referees to be stricter and reduce the grey area. Everyone agrees to it. Even the Premier League agrees. It’s fine if they interpret it differently. As long as their interpretation is within the framework of the law, it’s fine. It’s what the Premier League does with fouls. The game in England is way more flowing than in other leagues.”

A bit of wriggle room then for players in the EPL but they will have to be prepared for Hanging Judges with whistles elsewhere. Already, England’s referee chief Mike Riley has said the penalty in the Champions League final (awarded for hand ball after 22 seconds) would not have been given in the EPL.

Brud saved his most convincing answer till last. When I ask why IFAB had not opted for the challenge system — as used in tennis and cricket — he said: “For many reasons. One is the number. How many? This is already difficult.”

Citing the infamous Thierry Henry hand ball incident in a World Cup qualifier in 2009, he said: “Imagine if both coaches had used their challenges and such an oversight had occurred, the entire world would have killed us. They would say ‘How is it possible?’ You have 60 cameras in the stadium and we can see this and yet you are not allowed to change it because the challenges are gone. Just imagine! It would have been insane.

“The second argument is time wasting. We have thought about this and every time there is a complaint from a coach, it takes forever. And a coach could use it to disrupt an attacking phase just before the end of the game for example.” We had a laugh about which managers might abuse it more.

He again stressed the amount of consultation that had taken place. “When we talked to coaches and players, they insisted ‘100% no, we don’t want this’,” he said. “We have considered the opinions of people — we have no benefit or commercial gain for introducing VAR. We do not want to be important in football because of it.

“The experiment has shown that those involved in the game — those who play the game and watch the game — want more fairness, the right outcomes and referees want help. At the beginning, the clubs, associations and politicians almost imposed VAR on referees. If you ask refs now, they say they could not have asked for more. I can tell you that because I speak with referees on a regular basis.”

When I mention the Women’s World Cup, he said: “Please disregard it as very few women players and only two referees had used the system”, while acknowledging that communication is key. Summing up, he said: “Now, around every three games, one extra minute added so that the right team wins that match … I think most people would agree that this is okay.”

We all want the right team to win, but implementation as well as communication has to be smoother to satisfy the critics. To many, VAR’s attempt to cure the patient runs the risk of killing it.

This column began with a quote from one eminent statesman so it seems appropriate to conclude with another. Ancient Rome’s Marcus Cicero, also a lawyer, declared: “More laws, less justice.”  The all-action EPL could well be the judge and jury.

Bob Holmes is a longtime sports writer specialising in football

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.