The slippery slope argument is a well-known one. It dates back to the Romans, and can be found in the writings of Cicero. "Affairs soon move on, for they glide readily down the path of ruin when once they have taken a start".

2,000 years later, the same lessons apply. Hawk-Eye was introduced at Wimbledon in 2007, only for Centre Court and No. 1 Court. 18 years later, the All England Lawn Tennis Club consigned 148 years of line judges to the dustbin of history. Those coveted roles often went to the type of folks who volunteered at minor provincial tournaments, a link between the elite and club game, suddenly irrevocably eroded. Now, why bother? One might as easily call it the law of unintended consequences.

Which brings me on to the Championship rejecting the use of VAR for next season. No, I do not think we will have robot referees in the near future, though one cannot be sure - robots completed the Beijing half-marathon recently and just last week, AI robots beat elite table tennis players at their own game. And yes, technically it would not have been VAR but a system called Football Video Support (FVS), a wolf in sheep's clothing. But the premise remains. The pursuit of perfection is the enemy of progress.

The proposal involved giving each manager two challenges per game, which sounds like a nice compromise, until you realise that the average Premier League game involves fewer than one monitor check per game, even though it feels more common. Can you imagine a baked-in four stops per game, as you could be damn sure each manager would use both challenges. Even with FVS considered the less resource-intensive option, cost may have been a factor in the decision, but let's give the clubs the benefit of the doubt and offer praise where it's due. For one thing is certain, VAR is a curse on the game.

The common arguments in the 'against' column are well known. Inter alia, destroying the pure joy of the goal, breaking up play, emasculating referees, and so on. My argument is more prosaic - it simply cannot work. A football game is an ongoing narrative, a study in causation. Every moment, every pass, every cross, is a flowing chronology that begins at kick-off, and ends when it ends. There must be perfection, or it is futile. Just like in a game of chess, where the opening gambit leads to a cascade of subsequent moves which cannot be undone, the first wrong decision immediately renders the whole process bunk. It doesn't matter if it is the first or last minute. We cannot ever know how the game would have progressed from that very incident.

Take any clear example of VAR correcting an obvious error that would have led to a goal being ruled out, for instance a non-existent foul on the keeper from a corner. Ignoring any potential delay in the adjudication, you might say that this is a positive outcome. Justice was served. But go back a phase in play, and a shirt-tug was missed. Perhaps the corner kick itself was falsely awarded. Maybe you need to go back several phases in play to find the exaggerated dive which won a cheap free-kick, or the ball that was just out for a throw-in but unseen. Why is this error any less worthy of correction than the final error? Are some errors more equal than other errors?

It is the same false equivalence that says a team with an xG of 3.5 after 90 minutes is desperately unlucky to have drawn 1-1. Potentially yes, but a football match is a living being. A team leading 2-0 can expect to drop in, and equally expect their opponents to throw caution to the wind. The phrase 'goals change games' is well-worn cliché but it doesn't make it any less of a truism. An outcome alone cannot be determined by statistics and modelling. A game ebbs and flows, momentum fluctuates, uncontrollable variables play their part. If I wanted my sport to play out neatly on a 2D screen, I would watch e-sports.

I wrote an article a few weeks ago criticising the proposed - now implemented - play-off expansion. One could accuse this writer of being a cynical reactionary, instinctively opposed to change, and this would be accurate. However, whereas the new play-off proposal had some lukewarm support in some quarters, I sense that a clear majority of fans support the rejection of more digital interference. In an increasingly fractured fandom landscape, it is telling when an issue finds almost unanimous support. In an environment where the match-going attendee is uniformly neglected, it feels intrinsically right to give the fans this win.

Proven, considered changes can bring positives. The Championship employs goal-line technology. This works well because the ball is over the line, or it isn't. Black and white. Our modern society demands clarity, answers, conclusions. But football is loved purely because it exists in the grey area. I find the removal of line judges at Wimbledon distasteful and ahistorical, but it works on a practical level. The tennis ball clips the chalk or it doesn't. Football is not like that. Marginal calls and judgement define the game. Even if one tried to eradicate every mistake, consensus on what is a mistake is impossible. A good referee shows prudence and discernment. I initially thought Gabriel should have been sent-off for his head-butt motion towards Erling Haaland. A City-supporting friend disagreed, said that it was simply two players going hammer and tongs in a pulsating, gladiatorial environment. I tend to think he is right.

Australian radical writer Richard Nevile once said "There used to be an inch of difference between the two main British political parties. But... it was in that inch that we all lived". Football lives in that inch. Crush it at your peril.

Blogs 31 bloggers