Why VAR Technology Has Failed to Improve Refereeing Decisions
Controversy surrounds VAR in the FIFA World Cup. Technology was meant to reduce referee errors, so why has it sparked new debates? Insights from The Conversation.
This article is based on a contribution by Bikesh Raj Upreti, a lecturer in business information systems at the University of Queensland, to The Conversation. Upreti analyzes the paradox brought about by the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system. Below are excerpts from the original article along with the editorial team’s perspective.
Upreti begins by citing an example from the recent FIFA World Cup quarterfinals:
Many of world football’s brightest names took the field over the weekend, as the quarterfinals of the FIFA men’s World Cup played out. But for many fans, the heroics of the likes of Lionel Messi, Kylian Mbappe, and Erling Haaland were overshadowed by the actions of a surprising character: the referee. Two contentious decisions marred England’s 2–1 win over Norway: one that disallowed a Norwegian goal due to an earlier foul, and another that allowed an English goal despite an apparent earlier collision between the ball and an overhead cable.
This observation highlights that, despite the introduction of technology, refereeing decisions remain at the center of controversy. Upreti then points out the limitations of technology:
Technology can help referees resolve some factual questions, such as whether the ball has crossed the goal line, or which player touched the ball last before it went out of play. However, many decisions involving fouls, penalty kicks, and handballs come down to questions of judgment and how to apply the rules. Often even the best-informed experts will disagree about the right decision.
While VAR can replay and magnify footage to assist in factual verification, many decisions—such as the severity of a foul or the interpretation of handball—are inherently subjective. Upreti quotes FIFA’s Head of Refereeing, Pierluigi Collina, to emphasize that VAR must be adjusted to account for the referee’s discretionary power:
In part, this is because the on-field referee has discretion over how strictly to enforce certain rules, such as how much contact between players may count as a foul. According to Pierluigi Collina, FIFA’s head of referees, VAR has to adjust to the way the match is officiated. If the referee allows strong contact in the field, VAR should adjust accordingly, and finding a sweet spot for consistency is challenging.
Ultimately, Upreti concludes that technology alone cannot resolve the fundamental issues at play:
More technology and more intervention are not likely to resolve some of the core issues.
Editorial Opinion
In the short term, the lack of consistency in VAR decisions will continue to frustrate fans and players alike. This is especially true in high-stakes tournaments like the World Cup, where decisions can significantly impact match outcomes. Despite the adoption of advanced technology, skepticism surrounding refereeing decisions is likely to grow. FIFA and domestic leagues must expedite efforts to enhance training for referees and VAR operators while clarifying decision-making criteria. Improving the technology itself—such as refining sensors to detect the force of physical contact—is another area for consideration.
In the long term, VAR provides a valuable lesson about the “naive expectations” of technology automating decision-making. Similar dilemmas will arise in other fields, such as medical diagnostics and autonomous driving, where artificial intelligence and machine learning are expected to replace human judgment. Interpreting rules, considering context, and addressing exceptions cannot be resolved through pattern recognition alone. The case of sports refereeing pushes us to reconsider the balance between human discretion and machine objectivity in technological implementation. From our editorial perspective, future sports technology must prioritize “transparency in decision-making” and “feedback mechanisms” to regain trust.
References
- “VAR was supposed to take the messy human element out of refereeing. How did it go so wrong?”, by Bikesh Raj Upreti, Lecturer in Business Information Systems, The University of Queensland — The Conversation - Technology, 2026-07-12T19:30:07.000Z (CC BY-ND)
- Source URL: https://theconversation.com/var-was-supposed-to-take-the-messy-human-element-out-of-refereeing-how-did-it-go-so-wrong-287294
Frequently Asked Questions
- What kind of technology does VAR use?
- VAR synchronizes video footage from multiple high-speed cameras for playback and analysis. It enables features like automated offside line detection and magnified views of ball-player interactions. Goal-line technology (GLT) relies on magnetic sensors or cameras to determine if the ball has fully crossed the line. Additionally, sound sensors like Snicko detect contact between the ball and players' bodies.
- Why do VAR decisions often lead to disagreements?
- While VAR can clarify factual issues—such as whether a ball crossed the goal line or if an offside occurred—decisions about the severity of fouls or the intent behind handball incidents hinge on subjective interpretation. Since referees have different thresholds for judgment, VAR must adapt to those standards, making consistency a challenge.
- Can AI resolve these issues?
- Currently, it is unlikely. While AI can analyze vast amounts of previous decisions and learn patterns, it struggles to account for qualitative factors such as game flow, player intent, and a referee’s discretionary style. Furthermore, frequent rule changes necessitate costly updates and validation of AI models. ## References - [VAR was supposed to take the messy human element out of refereeing. How did it go so wrong? - The Conversation](https://theconversation.com/var-was-supposed-to-take-the-messy-human-element-out-of-refereeing-how-did-it-go-so-wrong-287294) — Published on 2026-07-12
Comments