Sky Sports' Johnny Phillips: Video refs still don’t rule out human error

Referee Craig Pawson awarded a 77th minute penalty when he deemed that Liverpool defender Dejan Lovren pushed Everton striker Dominic Calvert-Lewin.

The decision has been debated endlessly. From Jurgen Klopp’s furious arguments in the immediate aftermath, analysis of umpteen angles by pundits in the television studios, to views of retired referees. There are very few commentators on the game who haven’t been canvassed for an opinion.

And what makes this particular situation so intriguing is that all those opinions have merit yet are worthless in the same instance. The question, ‘Was it a penalty?’ can never be definitively answered despite so many pundits holding definitive views on the matter.

There are two specific camera angles of this decision that lead to different perspectives. The first, from behind the players and in line with the referee’s sight, showed Lovren push Calvert-Lewin in the back for what looked like a clear penalty.

The second, from behind the goal with the players running towards the camera, showed Calvert-Lewin step into and block Lovren’s running line leaving the defender with no alternative but to come into contact with the forward. That did not look remotely like a penalty.

According to FIFA, “the role of VAR is to ensure that no clearly wrong decisions are made in conjunction with the award or non-award of a penalty kick.” Clearly. What are the parameters of clearly.

From behind the goal it clearly wasn’t a penalty. From behind the players it clearly was a penalty. In this instance, the referee would review the incident and would have to stick with the original decision as he could not prove it wasn’t a penalty.

Given the many camera angles available, several minutes would have been taken to come to that decision and there would still be huge dissatisfaction with the outcome in certain quarters. And that is basing it on the VAR’s correct interpretation of its use.

As we see with the Decision Review System (DRS) in Test match cricket - nearly 10 years on from its introduction - the third umpire reviewing evidence is still susceptible to human error and a failure to interpret the rules correctly.

VAR is designed to eradicate the ‘clear’ incorrect decisions, but football doesn’t work to set boundaries. The VAR will then have to interpret the pictures he is replayed and make a decision based on them.

In injury-time at Selhurst Park last weekend, Bournemouth defender Charlie Daniels was adjudged to have fouled Crystal Palace winger Wilfried Zaha, giving away a penalty.

Daniels slid in to the tackle and won the ball but took a bit of the player too. It was a marginal decision. Again, implementing VAR would have solved nothing and taken a lot of time out of the game.

Of course, there are a few occasions when a decision is clear. Goal-line technology has been beneficial in solving such binary issues; the ball either does or doesn’t cross the line.

But VAR, by definition, will not eliminate human error. All it does is give the referee another decision to make based on video evidence.

Advocates of VAR also point to its use for offside decisions in the build-up to a goal. But you can only prove a tight offside call if the camera is exactly in line with the players involved. Even moving the camera angle just a metre or two to the left or right of the player takes away the true sight line and makes it hard to judge correctly.

Such as when West Ham beat Sunderland with a last minute Winston Reid winner at the London Stadium last season. His shot from the edge of the box went through a crowd of players and from the 18 yard camera angle one of his team-mates appeared to be standing offside in the keeper’s line of sight. Yet from the goal-line camera he appeared onside. Because there was no camera exactly in line with the player in question we will never know if he was or wasn’t.

Former referee Howard Webb explained that for all the above examples VAR would not alter a decision.

“Because of the subjectivity of sport, it’s important that people know we’re not going to deal with the 50-50 calls or 70-30 calls. And we’re not asking the VAR to ask himself or herself ‘Was the decision right?’ They’re going to ask the question, ‘Was the decision clearly wrong?’

That is a helpful intervention and is worth pointing out. The aim of VAR is to eliminate big errors. It will undoubtedly do that to some degree.

So, for the Calvert-Lewin penalty in question last weekend the VAR would be asked if it was clearly the wrong decision?

According to former Liverpool striker Michael Owen on Twitter, “I can’t believe Craig Pawson has given that! Such a soft penalty.” But according to former Liverpool defender Jamie Carragher, “It’s a penalty. People say it’s soft, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a penalty.”

To Owen it clearly wasn’t a penalty and to Carragher it clearly was. It is not unreasonable to assume there will be referees with similarly opposite opinions. In their subjective minds it wouldn’t be a 50-50 or 70-30 call, it would be a clear decision.

We would then be faced with a lengthy break in play with the possibility that one questionable outcome could be reversed in favour of another questionable outcome.

For the vast majority of cases, VAR is just a transfer of decision-making from one fallible human being to another.