Well, that’s a bit annoying.
Have you ever come up with a really good and – you thought – original idea only to find that someone else has got there before you? Your idea might still be good but sadly not as original as you thought.
That’s just happened to me and, as I say, it’s a bit annoying.
Newcastle’s game at Aston Villa last weekend was notable not just for the glorious 3-1 win for the visitors but for some very dodgy decisions by the match officials. What made the headlines was not so much VAR as the absence of it. Those of you who follow football will know exactly what I mean. If you don’t do football, I’m blowed if I’m going to spend ages explaining the subtleties of marginal offside decisions, short-sighted linesmen and how you decide whether a hand is in a natural position or not. (On that last point, if someone hammered a ball at your face from 10 yards away, we all know what a natural hand position would be – but it would still be a penalty. Better to duck.)
I feel sorry for referees and their colleagues. If some of the pundits who pulled them apart so mercilessly on Saturday were given a whistle, a flag and bottle of shaving foam and sent out to officiate a high-level, very fast game of professional football, they would soon find out how difficult it was.
I’m no fan of VAR but we’ve had it for a few years, and we’ve seen what it can do – good and bad. Some might say we should decide once and for all either to use it or not; and then stop moaning. I think there is a better way. This was my brilliant, although tragically no longer original, idea.
Reviews of umpiring decisions in cricket are very good. Each team has a set number of reviews per innings and loses one every time a review is unsuccessful. In addition, the umpires on the field can request a review if they are uncertain about something – usually a run out, stumping or low catch.
Why not use a similar system in football? Each team has a maximum of two VAR reviews which they can ask for at any point in the game. It might be the manager who tells the fourth official on the touchline, who in turn messages the referee; or it could be the captain who makes the decision. The game is stopped and a quick review takes places. No intricate lines – just a simple question: was that a clear and obvious error? If so, tell the referee to change the decision. If not, get on with the game. In both cases, do it very quickly. After all, if it’s clear and obvious, it will be … clear and obvious.
Anyway, Graham Scott, a former referee, has made almost exactly the same suggestion in today Daily Telegraph and even claims that FIFA are “trialling” it as we speak. Where or how isn’t clear and obvious from Mr Scott’s article, but I hope the trial works.
As I say, I’m a bit annoyed. I feel as if I’ve wasted a few brain cells on this one, and some might suggest I haven’t got that many left. All of which raises a few questions. What exactly is a brain cell? Do you use up brain cells by thinking a lot? How many do you need to remain functional? Can you count them? Etc. As the great Milton said (Milton Jones, that is, not John Milton, author of Pride and Prejudice): The pollen count: that’s a difficult job - one sneeze and you have to start all over again.
Underlying all this, it seems clear and obvious to me, is the complete breakdown of trust in the world. If we would only trust referees to exercise their judgment and make mainly good decisions (which they do) and then offer a little help when they slip up (which we all do, being human) – so much the better.
I remember a few years ago being told by a senior Ofsted inspector (SHMI) that trust had been banished from the school inspection system. No-one trusts anyone now, he claimed. Ofsted inspections became the educational version of VAR: fussy, missing the point, taking too long, looking at the wrong things and ultimately “ruining the game”. We saw what happened to officials at Villa Park on Saturday – without VAR, they were frightened to make a decision because it would – horror of horrors – be their decision alone and they would have to live with it, with no-one to get them out of jail
Sadly, many schools and teachers are now scared stiff of their own shadows. True, Ofsted under Amanda Spielman (now Baroness Spielman) became much more humane but some of its inspectors did not always reflect that. Fear leads to cynicism; to covering your own back; to playing the game. Children suffer in that environment. G K Chesterton said so memorably: “if a thing is to be improved, it first must be loved”. Love casts out fear.
That’s what comes of taking things too far. VAR would be a great thing if used well; in the same way, school inspection would be a great thing if done slightly differently.
We at IGS: Durham have always emerged very well from school inspections (I think we have had seven or eight now) so I have no real cause to moan about them But … it would be a great thing if inspections were viewed by schools as positive, helpful events and if inspectors really felt they were there to find what was good, to help and support. Just as with VAR, if there is a “clear and obvious” issue – a serious safeguarding problem or terrible results or (use your imagination) – they would need to be dealt with. Light touch, but rigorous if there’s a clear and obvious problem.
Ofsted … VAR … same thing really.
CJG
* Spot the deliberate mistake in the above. The first person to email me to point it out will receive a prize (principal@igsdurham.com)