Few technologies have split the world of sports, particularly football (soccer), quite like the Video Assistant Referee, or VAR. It arrived with a simple, noble promise: to end the game-changing injustices, the blatant missed calls that fans would debate for decades. The goal was to bring definitive, technological accuracy to a game traditionally governed by the split-second, subjective judgment of one person in the middle. Yet, years into its implementation across major leagues worldwide, the debate rages hotter than ever. Has VAR cleaned up the sport, or has it inadvertently damaged its very soul?
The Case for VAR: Pursuing Perfect Accuracy
Supporters of the system wave the banner of fairness. For them, the argument is simple: the final result should be correct. They point to the millions of dollars, the league titles, or the relegation heartbreaks that used to hinge on a single, flawed human decision. A referee, no matter how skilled, is human. They must track 22 players, contend with obstructions, and make monumental decisions in a fraction of a second, often from a difficult angle. Why, supporters ask, would we not use available technology to fix a blatant mistake?
The core purpose of VAR was never to achieve 100% perfection on every minor foul, but to eliminate the “clear and obvious errors.” These are the moments that leave fans and players alike bewildered—the goal scored with a clear handball, the brutal tackle missed by the official that should have been a red card, or the penalty given for a dive. In this respect, VAR has largely succeeded. We see far fewer instances of truly egregious errors deciding the fate of a match. Justice, in its most basic form, is more often served.
Reducing Simulation and Off-the-Ball Incidents
Another strong argument in its favor is deterrence. Players are acutely aware they are being watched by dozens of cameras. The incentive to “dive” or exaggerate contact to win a penalty has decreased, as VAR will likely expose the simulation. Likewise, off-the-ball incidents—the sly elbow in the box during a corner kick, the deliberate stamp after a play is dead—are now captured. This has, by some metrics, made the game cleaner. Players know they can no longer rely on the referee’s limited field of vision to get away with foul play, forcing a greater level of discipline.
The Backlash: Is Technology Ruining the Game?
Despite these logical benefits, the opposition to VAR is passionate and deeply rooted in the emotional experience of the sport. The chief complaint isn’t always about the decisions themselves; it’s about the feeling. Football is a game of rhythm, flow, and explosive, spontaneous emotion. VAR, critics argue, shatters all three.
The Passion Killer: Delayed Celebrations
The most cited grievance is the death of the pure goal celebration. A player scores a crucial goal, the stadium erupts, and a moment of collective, primal joy is shared. But wait. Every player, every fan, immediately turns their head to the referee. Is there a VAR check? The game stops. The players stand around awkwardly. The fans fall silent, their cheers replaced by anxiety. Three minutes later, the goal is confirmed (or disallowed). If confirmed, the attempt to re-ignite that spontaneous joy feels hollow and manufactured. If disallowed, the elation is replaced by crushing disappointment. This stop-start nature, this technological interrogation of joy, feels alien to a fluid sport.
It is important to understand the original mandate for VAR. It was introduced not to re-referee the entire match, but specifically to correct ‘clear and obvious errors’ and ‘serious missed incidents’ relating to four key situations: goals, penalty decisions, direct red card incidents, and mistaken identity. Many critics argue the system has strayed far from this original, limited intention.
The Search for “Microscopic” Infractions
This leads to the second major criticism: VAR has changed what is being refereed. It was meant to fix the obvious, but it has evolved into a tool for finding the microscopic. We’ve all seen them: the agonizing delays over an “armpit offside,” where analysts draw digital lines on a screen to see if a player’s shoulder was a millimeter ahead of a defender’s boot. Was this player really gaining an advantage? Technically, yes. But is it within the spirit of the game? Many say no.
This obsession with technical purity has created bizarre outcomes. A brilliant goal might be disallowed because, forty seconds earlier in the buildup, the ball grazed a player’s sleeve in a way that the current, convoluted handball rule deems illegal. This, critics say, was never the point. It has transformed the system from a shield against obvious mistakes into a forensic investigation searching for any technical infraction, no matter how trivial or irrelevant to the play.
The Undermining of On-Field Authority
An overlooked casualty in the VAR debate is the on-field referee. The “man in the middle” was once the ultimate authority. Now, they often appear as a simple conduit for a decision being made by an unseen official in a video room miles away. Referees seem hesitant to make big calls, knowing VAR can bail them out—or, worse, embarrass them. This “safety net” can lead to passive officiating, where the referee defers responsibility, further slowing the game.
Furthermore, the process of the referee jogging over to a small screen on the sideline—the “on-field review”—often seems like pure theater. They are reviewing an incident in slow motion that the VAR official has already scrutinized dozens of times. Rarely does the referee contradict the VAR’s recommendation, leading fans to question the point of the review, which adds even more dead time to the match.
Finding a Middle Ground: The Future of Officiating
The debate is no longer really about whether VAR should exist; the technology is clearly here to stay. The real question is how to refine it so it serves the game instead of suffocating it. Several solutions are constantly proposed:
- Stricter “Clear and Obvious” Interpretation: Force VARs to adhere to their original mission. If it takes three minutes and multiple angles to find a foul, it was not “clear and obvious.”
- Time Limits: Impose a hard time limit—say, 90 seconds—for a VAR review. If a decision cannot be made in that time, the on-field call stands.
- Let the Referee Decide: Remove the VAR official’s power to make the final call. The VAR should act only as an advisor, letting the on-field referee retain ultimate authority.
- Limit Its Use: Restrict VAR only to objective, factual decisions. Use it for offside calls (perhaps with a thicker “margin of error” line) and mistaken identity, but remove it from subjective calls like handball interpretations or foul severity.
Ultimately, VAR is a tool. Its implementation has exposed a fundamental tension in sports: our desire for perfect, robotic justice versus our love for the game’s imperfect, unpredictable, and passionate human element. The system has corrected undeniable errors, but it has come at a high cost to the sport’s flow and emotional core. Finding the balance between technology and tradition is the single biggest challenge facing football’s rule-makers today.
