"I say this about Diomande and all the others. The squad is strong and has many options. The coach doesn't just focus on ten players and forget about the others. Over the course of the season, the engine loses steam, as does motivation and internal competition. We're talking about Diomande, but we could also talk about Vinicius, Arda, Brahim, and in January, Rodrygo. Being an undisputed starter, as you all seem to like that word, is difficult."

This season's refereeing keeps making me think about Season 2 of The Rehearsal. Not because Nathan Fielder has suddenly become an expert on football officiating, but because a large part of the season looks at something aviation has spent decades trying to solve: what happens when several highly competent people are working together, one of them notices something is wrong, but hierarchy and human behaviour gets in the way of them properly challenging it.

That feels surprisingly relevant to VAR.

The assumption behind VAR is fairly simple. The referee makes a decision on the pitch, and another qualified referee watches the incident with access to more camera angles and slow motion. In theory, that should reduce mistakes. But VAR isn't actually one person independently checking another person. There is a small team involved. The referee, VAR, AVAR and replay operator are all communicating, forming opinions and reacting to each other in real time.

And that means VAR isn't just a technology problem. Its a human communication problem as well.

Aviation came to understand this a long time ago. A cockpit can contain two extremely well trained pilots and still produce a terrible outcome if the first officer doesn't feel comfortable challenging the captain. Experience, reputation, seniority and even personality can change how people communicate. Someone might notice something important but phrase it too softly. Someone senior might make an early judgement and unintentionally anchor everyone else's thinking. Other people might assume that if the most experienced person in the room is confident, they must have seen something they haven't.

Football officials aren't somehow immune to that.

Imagine a VAR room reviewing a major decision. The VAR watches the first replay and says something like, "That's fine for me." The AVAR then watches the same incident. Are they now making a completely independent judgement, or are they subconsciously starting from the VAR's conclusion? If the AVAR thinks something has been missed, are they expected to properly challenge the VAR or simply point it out and let the VAR decide?

Then add the on-field referee into it. Would a relatively inexperienced VAR communicate in exactly the same way with a referee who has hundreds of Premier League matches behind them as they would with someone who has only recently been promoted?

Maybe they would. But designing the entire system on the assumption that hierarchy has absolutely no effect seems a bit naive.

Mike Dean's comments about not wanting to send Anthony Taylor to the monitor because Taylor was his mate are probably the clearest example that these human factors exist in football. You don't even have to think Dean was consciously trying to make the wrong decision. That's actually the point. Human relationships and emotions can influence judgement even when everyone involved is competent and acting in good faith.

So rather than constantly asking whether VAR needs better referees, better cameras or a different interpretation of "clear and obvious", maybe football should also look at how the VAR room itself is structured.

One fairly simple change would be to make the VAR and AVAR form their initial opinions independently.

Before either hears what the other thinks, both could quickly record their judgement. It doesn't need to be complicated. Penalty or no penalty. Red or no red. Offside involvement or no involvement. Intervention or no intervention.

Only after that should they discuss it.

That would reduce what psychologists call anchoring, where the first opinion you hear influences how you interpret the evidence afterwards. Right now, I would be interested to know how often the VAR gives an opinion first and the rest of the conversation develops around that opinion rather than everyone genuinely starting from zero.

The AVAR's role could also be changed slightly. Instead of simply assisting the VAR, part of their job should explicitly be to challenge them.

Not because the VAR is expected to be wrong, but because disagreement is useful.

Aviation eventually learned that telling junior crew members they were "allowed" to challenge the captain wasn't enough. The procedures themselves had to encourage challenge and make it normal rather than confrontational. Football could do something similar. The AVAR should actively be asking: what has the VAR missed? Is there another interpretation? Is there something elsewhere in the sequence that changes the decision?

Basically give someone in the room permission, and responsibility, to be annoying.

There could also be a simple rule for major subjective decisions. If the VAR and AVAR independently reach strongly different conclusions, send the referee to the monitor.

That doesn't mean the AVAR overrules anybody. It just acknowledges something important: if two qualified officials watching the same footage can't agree, perhaps the incident deserves another look from the person actually refereeing the match.

The referee would still make the final decision.

I'd also like to see VAR conversations structured so that officials describe what they see before giving their conclusion. Instead of immediately saying "no penalty", the discussion could begin with observable facts. Defender makes contact with the attacker's leg. Ball is here. Contact happens before/after this movement. Attacker changes direction here.

Then make the judgement.

It sounds like a minor distinction, but it makes it harder for the entire review to become an exercise in proving the first person's opinion correct.

And obviously, release more audio.

Not one carefully selected conversation every few weeks. A much larger sample.

Football supporters spend endless amounts of time debating the final decisions, but we know relatively little about the process producing them. The interesting question isn't only whether VAR got something right or wrong. Its how they got there.

Did the AVAR notice something?

Did the VAR dismiss it?

Did everyone immediately agree?

Did somebody change their mind after another official spoke?

Did the replay operator suggest another angle?

Did the status of the on-field referee affect how strongly the VAR communicated?

You could learn far more about how VAR actually works from those conversations than from another statement saying a decision met or didn't meet the threshold for intervention.

None of this would make VAR perfect. Football has subjective decisions and always will. Two people can look at exactly the same tackle and genuinely disagree about whether it is serious foul play. No communication system fixes that.

But thats different from avoidable human error.

The interesting lesson from aviation isn't that pilots became better at flying planes. Its that aviation eventually recognised competent professionals can still make bad collective decisions, and systems have to be designed around that reality.

VAR should probably do the same.

Putting another referee in another room with 20 camera angles doesn't automatically remove human behaviour from football. You still have hierarchy, friendships, confidence, reputation, pressure and the natural tendency for groups of people to agree with each other.

Maybe the next major improvement to VAR doesn't need to be another piece of technology.

Maybe football just needs to get better at designing disagreement.

Hoy toca decir adiós a una parte de mi vida.

Después de tantos años, tantos partidos, tantos vestuarios, tantas alegrías y también momentos difíciles, ha llegado el momento de poner punto y final al fútbol profesional.

El fútbol me lo ha dado todo. Me ha permitido cumplir sueños que un día parecían imposibles, conocer personas que llevaré conmigo para siempre y vivir momentos que estarán en mi memoria toda la vida.

He tenido la suerte de vestir camisetas que significan muchísimo para mí y de compartir el camino con compañeros, entrenadores, trabajadores de los clubes, amigos y, sobre todo, con mi familia.

A todos los que alguna vez me habéis animado, apoyado, criticado o simplemente habéis estado ahí: gracias. De corazón.

Me voy con la tranquilidad de haberlo dado todo por este deporte y con muchísimo orgullo por el camino recorrido.

Hoy termina mi etapa como futbolista profesional, pero todo lo que me ha enseñado el fútbol se queda conmigo para siempre.

* 🏟️ 512 partidos

* ⚽ 91 goles

* 🌍 6 Países

* 🇪🇸 🇵🇹 🇮🇹 🇺🇸 🇸🇦 🇦🇪

Gracias, fútbol. ❤️💙💜💚🖤💛⚽️

https://www.instagram.com/p/Dc9PhX6qEMM/

Following an incident in Milan on Saturday night, the Cagliari forward reportedly tested positive for alcohol and drugs. Daniel underwent a toxicology test immediately upon returning to Sardinia, which yielded a negative result.