Get the latest Welsh rugby news sent straight to your inbox Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

I do like my football, tune in to Match of the Day whenever I can, and take an interest in what is happening. I'm no particular expert on it and not as passionate as many others are, but I do enjoy a good game of the beautiful, I must say.

And whilst I've been so busy recently I haven't been able to see as much of the action as I would have liked, I am, of course, fully aware of the fuss being kicked up pretty much everywhere about VAR (Video Assistant Referee). On radio shows, social media and so on.

Right at this moment in time it is the subject matter that dominates above any other in football, with managers, players, pundits and, most importantly, the fans expressing strong views. It appears to be causing any manner of frustrations and discontentment, which I suppose is a little inevitable when something new comes in and takes a bit of getting used to.

Given we have had the TMO in rugby for a number of years, I invariably get asked the question about VAR in football and how I feel it is working when I do after dinner Q&As.

My reply is always the same. That the modern game - be it football or rugby - is so incredibly fast that if you want to get the big decisions correct, then you need technology to help ensure that.

Given the pace the sports are played at, and the intense scrutiny, it is humanly impossible for the match-day referee, or his linesmen, to see everything from the angles they are at. Let's be honest, how many of you have needed to see a replay of a decision and slow it down, look from a completely different angle to the officials, in order to make up your own mind?

The key thing about technology is ensuring the big calls are right, that a team doesn't lose a game because of something a referee or his assistants get fundamentally wrong.

A bit like Cardiff City in the Premier League last season, when Chelsea's Cesar Azpilicueta headed home an equaliser when he was two yards offside. It was the turning point of the match as the Bluebirds went on to lose. Under VAR this season, that goal would not have stood. Cardiff may well have gone on to win the match, even keep their Premier League place.

So that's how important technology is, how it can work for the betterment of everybody. But that doesn't mean there aren't areas where it can be improved.

The offside controversy

One of the big issues at the moment is the situation with offsides, people kicking up a fuss if an arm, or a toenail, is marginally in front of the last defender.

The officials, including VAR, cannot be blamed for this one. You are either offside, or you are not. There is no grey area. In football, provided you directly influence the game, that is the rule. That is what VAR is judging on.

Listen, as a referee you can have an element of things being open to intepretation. For example, a scrum-half picks up the ball from a scrum or ruck, I can see the opposition winger on the other side of the pitch is slightly offside, the scrum-half goes on the blindside with no intention of heading to the open, then it's play on and I will manage the situation. It's a penalty I can put in the pocket, so to speak.

That, to me, is empathy, knowing when not to blow the whistle, because the winger isn't influencing matters. However, if the scrum-half took one step towards the winger, but sees the space closed down because he notices the winger offside, which means he changes his run to go on the blindside, then I would be playing advantage for an offside penalty as the winger has influenced play by being offside.

I'm not sure if it's quite the same with football. If you're involved in a move that leads to a goal, and you're even a millimetre offside, that is being ruled as offside. But is the problem more with the rules of the game, rather than the officials who have to apply them?

Likewise with VAR and the TMO. Once you go to them to review something, it ties the referee's hands in applying empathy and the decision has to be a technical one. Is he offside, yes or no, as the rule stands? So don't blame the referee or the VAR officials, they have to go by the letter of the law.

So it may be the rule needs to change, not the VAR interpretation. Perhaps that if a tiny part of your body is offside, but the rest of it is onside, maybe the goal should still stand.

Thus the question to ask next time you're not happy with VAR is what does the rule actually say and does VAR have the authority to rule on whether the offside player has a material effect on what happens next?

The other thing I notice in football is that there is possibly a little more tribalism at times. So a Liverpool fan, for example, may feel aggrieved when he or she sees a goal ruled out for a technical offside - but they deem it the right decision when it happens for the other team. This can be the same in rugby mind, too.

That's part of the issue, there are so many emotions and passions at play. But the VAR and TMO have to deal with technical issues that are black and white.

Fans do need to understand and accept the offside rule. There is no leeway for the officials as things stand, it seems. They have to interpret the law. Although that law could change one day, given some of the issues that have been raised.

Is VAR being over-used?

There is no doubt in my mind that VAR, and the TMO for that matter, is being over-used.

Every goal is checked at the moment, for example, and that's probably a little bit too much.

That applies in rugby as well. We as match officials need to get the majority of our on-field decisions right and use the technology as back-up, rather than to make decisions for us.

However, while the back-up is there, it's only human nature for us to check something. The problem, of course, is that when you start doing that, any number of possible technical infringements can suddenly be spotted. Like the offsides I've just mentioned. Some of these infringements may seem minor, but because they are there a goal, or a try, has to be ruled out.

So you're in the last minute of an FA Cup final and a winning goal is scored. The referee sees nothing wrong, knows it is a goal, but thinks he'd better check, just in case. The VAR suddenly finds, through several replays, that a player is a couple of millimetres offside, the goal is ruled out.

See what I mean?

You can have your own interpretation about whether a player is offside or not, but technology rules that out.

The technology is meant to be there to support, not to use every single time, so perhaps less needs to be more.

The time it takes to make decisions

This is one of the big issues in football at the moment, with claims it takes up to three minutes before a decision is made. A goal ruled out, or a penalty award. People get fed up with it, and understandably so.

But whoever is in charge wants to get the big decisions correct so it's understandable that time is taken to try to ensure that.

What I would say is that as a team of officials, you want to come to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Often you can find yourself in the hands of the TV director, who might not necessarily be able to show the angle you need to come to that decision quickly.

So you look for another angle, that creates delay. And so on.

But most officials are happy to look at something two or three times and they see enough in that time to satisfy themselves one way or the other. That's the way it should be.

Refusal to look at pitchside monitors

This has become another big talking point, how referees won't go to take a look at pitchside monitors and are totally reliant on VAR making a decision for them.

Whilst the referees may be under a Premier League directive, this is one that I cannot fully understand, if I'm honest.

Look, if you are the referee, you are ultimately the one responsible for making key decisions. You are the one who will be receiving the flak.

I've had Derek Bevan act as my TMO for most of my refereeing career. There are few officials on earth that I look up to and respect more than him, I have had total trust in his decision-making. But I've still wanted to see things with my own eyes to satisfy myself with the final call. Even though we would be on the same page for most decisions, there is still a personal view to it.

As the chosen match day referee, you have to own decisions out on that field. Let's be honest, you are picked for the game because the authorities deem you the best person to officiate it. With the greatest of respect, and no-matter how good they may be at the particular role they are doing, the VAR or TMO officials are not necessarily deemed the best person to referee. Or maybe they were in their day, but time has caught up with them.

So surely as the chosen match-day referee, the one who takes responsibility, you want to be convinced yourself. Looking at the TV monitor enables you to do that, make a call you are totally at ease with and have seen for yourself.

The lack of a big screen

Of course, as rugby referees we have the advantage of being able to look at any contentious incident up on the big screen. That doesn't happen in football and I'm not sure that is fair on the fans, who have paid good money to attend the game yet are left in the dark about VAR decision-making.

Again, this is another issue that has raised its head recently.

I'm told that football's powers-that-be are a little concerned about the possibility of crowd disturbance, if some fans don't agree with the referee's decision. Hence it's not shown on the big screen and there is no communication about what is happening and why.

But let's remember that the vast majority of fans who attend matches are good decent, well behaved people and wouldn't dream of getting involved in any trouble. Is it fair on them to be left in the dark, at the expense of the fears over a tiny minority, particularly if a decision takes three minutes and there is no communication about it?

The passion being taken out of the game

Of course, while this happens, the other claim that is being made is that the passion is being taken out of the sport. This you could argue applies to rugby, as well as football, when a try is being checked and then potentially ruled out.

But by showing the incident up on the big screen, the fans become part of that excitement and the passion isn't lost.

When we're checking a try, and say there has been a suggestion of a knock-on, fans will look up intently. Some will argue 'yes that's a knock-on', others will think it's not. They'll debate it and await the decision. It's part of the excitement, but they are being kept fully informed.

That, of course, doesn't happen in football because of the lack of communication inside the ground, which creates some of the confusion fans talk about.

And if anything, you need to retain that passion in football even more because the goal celebrations are more elaborate. That's understandable, because in rugby you might get four tries or more a game, there are also penalties, drop-goals. More ways to score.

In football, you might only get one goal a game. So it's 0-0, last 10 minutes, someone scores, the team and fans celebrate wildly. Suddenly it's 'Hang on a minute, just in case it's ruled out.'

That's where the passion can be lost a little, although as I say informing the fans - and the TV viewers - about the discussions taking place can help keep the excitement levels.

Don't shoot the officials

It is clearly an emotive subject, but the point to remember here is that technology is there to aid the game.

This is not a question of rugby getting it right and football needing to learn. Definitely not. As I say, I feel we still use the TMO a little too much in rugby and, of course, we had our own issues in the early days.

But VAR is there to help referees arrive at the correct decisions when it really matters. The officials are there to implement those rules - and that's what they are doing.

Early issues and concerns are inevitable, as has been the case in other sports, but once they have been refined and the fans are kept more informed, that in turn will create greater understanding.