The World Cup has come and gone (congrats to Spain!) and one of the lingering talking points has been the Video Assistant Referee, aka VAR. VAR is soccer’s version of instant replay that started coming into use in the United States around the mid 1980s (first in the NFL). It was born of the fact that TV audiences (and now audiences on social media) could clearly see when referees made mistakes – surely there’s a way to prevent them in the first place, right?

Sadly, no. VAR, as with any instant replay system promises something – perfection – that no human being can produce. As a result, it’s really only shifted the focus of arguments about refereeing errors. Goodness knows, sports fans love nothing better than arguing and VAR provides plenty of grist for the mill.

This piece at The Ringer by Brian Phillips lays out a few of the most contentious talking points about VAR from the tournament. It highlights (1) Folarin Balogun’s red card during the US match against Bosnia-Herzegovina, which famously included political interference afterwards; (2) the chalking off of a second goal for Egypt against Argentina due to VAR finding an Egyptian foul in the buildup to the goal about 20 seconds earlier; and (3) the sending off of Swiss forward Breel Embolo for a second yellow for diving against Argentina. All this in service of an argument that VAR should simply be scrapped.

Of those, the strongest argument comes out of the Balogun red card. Phillips points out that the way VAR review works effectively leaves officials with a binary choice of keeping the call made on the field by the ref or taking a specific action VAR is entitled to take. In the Balogun example both the original call (no foul at all) and the VAR decision (red card to Balogun) were wrong – it was a foul, and probably a yellow card for Balogun. But because of the way VAR is setup that couldn’t be the final outcome, it was either one wrong call or another. Then, of course, there’s the Trump of it all, which as entirely separate discussion.

The other two, honestly, feel like working back from a result Phillips (and, to be fair, lots of others) just don’t like. Yes, that Egyptian goal was thrilling and it was 20 seconds or so after the foul in question, but the foul is what allowed the counterattack to happen in the first place. If finding the beginning of the “attacking phase of play” means anything it would encompass that. As for Embolo, while there’s a certain bit of the Balogun problem, as once VAR is involved one of two decisions has to be made, I don’t feel they’re both equally wrong (Embolo dove and got caught, already on a yellow card).

I’m not immune to Phillips’ ultimate argument. Certainly my wife is down for ditching VAR completely as the whole process drives her nuts. I will say that for the couple of years the Leeds were in the Championship, England’s second tier where VAR is not used, it was fun not to worry about it. You had to accept there would be wrong calls, obviously wrong in some cases, and just roll with it, though. They tend to balance out over the course of a 46-game season, but that can be hard to remember in the moment, and they may not balance at all in a 3-game group stage at a World Cup.

Ultimately, however, I don’t think getting rid of VAR is a realistic option. There’s simply too much money at stake these days. Imagine a final day six-pointer in the Premier League where whether a goal stands or not will decide which team loses out on millions of dollars the next season. Does anybody really want that? Isn’t there a way to make VAR work a little bit better if we’re going to be stuck with it?

I’ve got a few ideas.

Treat VAR Review Like En Banc Court Review

In my world, appeals in federal court are general decided by three-judge panels, regardless of how many judges actually sit in a particular Circuit Court. If a party doesn’t like the panel’s decision, they can seek review en banc, with the entire court all sitting and deciding the case. It’s rare, but when it happens the original panel decision basically ceases to exist, from a legal standpoint (it’s still in the reporters). The en banc court is not reviewing the panel decision itself, it’s resolving the same issues but on a clean slate.

What does this have to do with VAR? VAR is, effectively, a review of the referee’s decision and not, necessarily, what happened on the field leading up to it. Ultimately it’s not important whether the ref was “right” or “wrong,” what’s important is getting it right, so let’s start with the facts and not the ref’s decision. To that end . . .

Don’t Limit the Remedy

As Phillips points out, the current VAR scheme limits the remedy available during VAR review so that it often comes down to a choice between letting the on-field call stand or changing to a single, particular VAR-approved outcome. For a sport with so many judgement calls – the kind VAR can never solve – that’s a problem.

An American football example: Years ago I was watching a WVU game and, somewhere in the middle of the second quarter, the WVU ballcarrier either crossed the line for a first down or got very very close. It was only second down, so it hardly mattered, but a review was embarked upon. While they ran the footage of the ballcarrier’s knee touching the ground over and over, looking for the right spot, there was a clear foul in the background – an opposing player pulled a WVU player down by the facemask. Seeing that penalty and calling it would have made the minutiae of where the ball ended up moot (it was a first down regardless), but it wasn’t on the approved list of things instant replay could look at.

Once VAR review kicks off, the focus should be on getting it right, regardless of how that comes about. If it means it comes down to a choice between two clearly applicable options, so be it, but if some flexibility is required the process should allow for it. In the Embolo situation it would allow review to wipe away the original Argentine yellow card without necessarily resulting in a second yellow for Embolo. In legal terms, VAR should be about equity, not ticking procedural boxes.

Set a Time Limit

This, I think, is where lots of people get frustrated with the process. VAR (and every other instant replay system) was designed to deal with the “holy shit, how’d the ref miss that?!?” situations, not lead to extensive litigation over every potential minor mistake. To that end, put a clock on the VAR, whether it’s a minute or 30 seconds or whatever. If it can’t be resolved that quickly, it doesn’t need to be resolved.

Embrace Automated Tech Where Possible

Everybody loves goal-line technology. Apparently similar technology in tennis (which Phillips references) is fairly popular, too. Other similar technologies should be embraced wherever possible. At the World Cup a new semi-automated offside system was used and it was fantastic. People still quibble about what the tech measures (which is the fault of FIFA’s laws being written for an earlier age, not VAR) and there are times when there’s more in question than just where body parts are, but in terms of getting basic question right, it worked really well. More like that, please.

Revoke Article 27 and Fix It

Not a VAR issue, precisely, but so long as I’m venting.

Bad as the Balogun red card was, it should have ended with the game itself. Instead, there was political intervention and FIFA’s invocation of Article 27 of its Disciplinary Code, a loophole big enough to drive a two semis crawling slowly uphill through. It allows FIFA, with absolutely no guidance or standards whatsoever, to “decide to fully or partially suspend the implementation of a disciplinary measure.” It had already been utilized prior to the tournament to allow Cristiano Ronaldo to play the first couple of games (as well as some others), but the Balogun thing was particularly egregious.

But who can blame them? If you have the ability to revoke a punishment that’s unreviewable, why not use it to make sure marquee players are still in the tournament and your political friends are appeased? Article 27 needs revoked and replaced with a systemized scheme for reviewing disciplinary decisions (most leagues have them), with standards governing when to step in and suspend them. It will still not be great, but it will be a far sight better than what we’ve got now.

Recognize the Flaws in Human Endeavors

Anthony Taylor, a long-time ref in England’s top flight who had done some games in the World Cup, just announced his retirement. He did so noting that “the pressure is intense and the scrutiny is constant.” This from a man who, in an earlier life, had been a prison guard.

Did Taylor make mistakes over the years? I’m sure he’d agree he did. He’s only human, after all. Antonin Scalia famously wrote in a concurring opinion that “[l]ike other human institutions, courts and juries are not perfect” and you “cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly.” I think he’s right, although we draw widely differing conclusions based on that observation. Regardless, the same is true of any system of officiating a sport. If VAR ultimately promises perfection and can’t deliver on that, how can we expect it of any human being? Perfection in officiating is an illusion and will always be beyond our reach.

None of those are guarantees, of course, but I think they’d help make the VAR system better, which is all we can hope for at this point. But don’t worry – at no time in the future will the sport (or any other) reach the point where fans can’t argue about bad calls.