What can VAR learn from pilots and nurses?
Arsenal were cost two points in their bid to become Premier League champions when disgraced former VAR official Lee Mason ‘forgot’ to complete the goal check on Brentford’s equaliser. That meant not drawing the lines showing that Nørgaard was offside when receiving the ball before crossing for Toney to nod home.
Mistakes happen – but Lee Mason has form. Earlier in the season he incorrectly disallowed Arsenal’s Martinelli from opening the scoring at Old Trafford – another game that could have serious repercussions on the title race. While everyone would agree that this is unacceptable – it is also puzzling: how can a system introduced to overcome human-error, be so prone to human-error!
VAR isn’t a fully automated process, and it shouldn’t be – so perhaps human error will naturally creep into VAR decision-making. But here’s the catch: there are four video match officials deliberating on events: the video-assistant-referee (VAR) and three assistant-video-referees (AVARs). For one of these to occasionally make an error is understandable, if not expected, but for all four – that doesn’t seem likely.
Many cognitive processes can bias referee decisions – but instead let’s focus (begrudgingly) on those ‘assistant’ referees: what could have impacted their capacity to perform their duties as a collective? A possible explanation is our submission to authority.
Regardless of content, we tend to attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority figure – leading to undue influence and obedience. The socio-cognitive bias is one of the more publicised psychological effects thanks to Milgram’s infamous obedience experiments in the 1960s.
It is possible that the hierarchical VAR operating room is an environment where AVARs either find it difficult, or don’t even bother, challenging authority. What Malcolm Gladwell describes as a high-power distance culture: people of inferior rank (AVARs) are less willing to openly communicate with and challenge their superiors (VARs).
“Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.” – Bill Shankly
A high-power distance culture is not a problem unique to football – and other life and death contexts have made steps to encourage lower-status team members to speak up and take action. In his chapter on ‘The Ethnic Theory of Plane Crashes’, Gladwell argues that countries with strong cultural norms against directly questioning authority have improved aviation safety by cultural reform inside the cockpit: encouraging all crew to speak up about any perceived dangers.
In a recent hospital visit I was able to witness first-hand the implementation of the two-challenge rule used to empower all medical team members to (ironically in this instance) “stop the line” if they sense or discover an essential safety breach.
When an initial assertive statement is ignored:
It is your responsibility to assertively voice concern at least two times to ensure that it has been heard.
The team member being challenged must acknowledge that concern has been heard.
If the safety issue still hasn't been addressed:
Take a stronger course of action.
Use supervisor or chain of command.
It doesn't have the be the two-challenge rule per se, but improvements to refereeing must focus on empowering officials to question authority. There are already positive signs that Howard Webb, the first chief refereeing officer of the Professional Game Match Officials, is trying tackle power-distance.
A criticism of the video system, and perhaps another manifestation of authority bias, is that on-field referees are over-inclined to change their decisions when called by the VAR to the pitchside monitor.
Webb wants referees to acknowledge that the VAR is human and may incorrectly identify something as a clear and obvious error. On-field referees should be comfortable in saying: 'Thank you, but in my opinion, I think my first decision was okay'.
It’s a good start – but Webb should also be looking inside the VAR room when identifying critical moments where encouraging officials to challenge their colleagues can lead to better outcomes.
Comments