Can VAR Be Improved?
Despite its problems, removing VAR completely would not necessarily solve football’s refereeing controversies.
Before video technology, incorrect goals, missed penalties, mistaken red cards and obvious offsides could decide matches without any possibility of correction. Supporters might feel nostalgic for a simpler era, but they also remember the frustration caused by major mistakes that television viewers could immediately see.
The more realistic question is not whether football should abandon VAR.
It is how the system can become faster, clearer and more consistent.
Several reforms could significantly improve the way VAR operates.
- Improve Communication Inside the VAR Room
The Luis Díaz incident demonstrated that correct technology is useless when communication protocols fail.
VAR officials must use precise and standardized language when speaking to the referee.
Instead of saying only “check complete,” officials should clearly state both the original decision and the recommended outcome.
For example:
“On-field decision: offside. VAR decision: onside. Award the goal.”
This type of language leaves less room for misunderstanding, particularly in noisy and high-pressure situations.
Officials should also repeat important information before play restarts, similar to communication procedures used in aviation and emergency services.
A few additional seconds of confirmation could prevent a major error that affects an entire match.
- Allow Supporters to Hear Referee Explanations
One of the greatest sources of frustration is the lack of information inside stadiums.
Television viewers can usually watch multiple replay angles and listen to commentators discuss the incident. Supporters in the stands often see only a message announcing that a VAR check is taking place.
They may not know:
What incident is being reviewed.
Which player may have committed an offence.
Why the referee changed the decision.
Which Law of the Game was applied.
This lack of transparency creates confusion and suspicion.
Some competitions have already experimented with referees announcing decisions through stadium microphones. Expanding this practice could make VAR feel less secretive.
A brief explanation would often be enough:
“After review, the defender handled the ball with the arm in an unnatural position. Penalty awarded.”
Fans might still disagree, but at least they would understand the reasoning behind the decision.
- Release More VAR Audio
Publishing referee audio after controversial incidents can help governing bodies explain how decisions were reached.
It also allows supporters to understand the complexity of officiating at the highest level.
However, audio should not be released only after serious mistakes.
Regularly sharing recordings from both correct and incorrect decisions could improve trust and demonstrate how the system operates under pressure.
Transparency would also make officials more accountable.
If referees know that their communication may later be reviewed publicly, they may be more likely to follow clear procedures and explain their reasoning carefully.
At the same time, football authorities must protect officials from personal abuse. Accountability should not become an excuse for harassment.
- Use Specialist VAR Officials
Operating VAR requires a different skill set from refereeing on the pitch.
An on-field referee must manage players, read the flow of the match, maintain authority and make immediate decisions while running at high speed.
A video official must analyze replay angles, understand camera limitations, communicate clearly and identify whether an error reaches the threshold for intervention.
Not every excellent referee will automatically become an excellent VAR.
For this reason, football could develop specialist video officials who receive dedicated training and spend most of their careers working with replay technology.
These officials could focus on:
Replay analysis.
Communication protocols.
Camera selection.
Offside technology.
Consistency in applying intervention thresholds.
A specialized role could improve decision-making and reduce the confusion that occurs when officials move between very different responsibilities.
- Establish Greater Consistency
Supporters can accept decisions they dislike more easily when similar incidents are treated in the same way.
The greatest frustration comes when one challenge results in a penalty on Saturday, while an almost identical incident is ignored on Sunday.
Absolute consistency may be impossible because football incidents are rarely identical. However, governing bodies can improve standards by providing clearer guidance and using real match examples during referee training.
Clubs, players, media organizations and supporters should also receive explanations when interpretations change.
Handball has been especially confusing because the guidance has been repeatedly adjusted. Fans often struggle to understand why one accidental contact is punished while another is not.
More stable rules would help both referees and supporters.
Technology cannot create consistency when the Laws themselves remain open to several interpretations.
- Introduce a Time Limit for Reviews
Long VAR reviews usually indicate that the incident is not clear and obvious.
If officials need several minutes, multiple camera angles and repeated slow-motion replays to identify an offence, the original decision may not have been obviously wrong.
A reasonable time limit could help protect the flow of the match.
For example, if VAR cannot identify a clear error within a defined period, the on-field decision could stand.
This would not work for every situation, especially complex offside sequences or cases involving mistaken identity. However, it could prevent officials from searching endlessly for a reason to overturn a decision.
VAR was designed to correct obvious mistakes, not to re-referee every incident frame by frame.
- Limit the Use of Slow Motion
Slow-motion footage can be extremely useful, but it can also distort how an incident appears.
A normal challenge may look far more dangerous when shown at a reduced speed. Accidental contact can appear deliberate because slow motion removes the speed and natural movement of the action.
Officials should first watch incidents at normal speed to understand the intensity, context and reaction time involved.
Slow motion should then be used only to determine specific details, such as:
The exact point of contact.
Whether the studs struck an opponent.
Whether the ball touched the hand.
Which player made contact first.
This approach would allow referees to benefit from replay technology without losing the real-time context of the incident.
Should Teams Be Allowed to Challenge Decisions?
Some supporters have suggested a challenge system similar to those used in tennis, cricket and American football.
Under this model, each team would receive a limited number of opportunities to request a video review.
If the challenge were successful, the team would keep it. If the original decision were confirmed, the team would lose the challenge.
This system could reduce unnecessary VAR interventions and give managers more control over important decisions.
It could also make the process more transparent. Everyone would know why play had stopped and which team had requested the review.
However, football presents unique difficulties.
Managers and players might use challenges tactically to interrupt momentum, waste time or create pressure around the referee. Teams might also save their challenges for late incidents, even when an obvious error occurred earlier in the match.
There would also be difficult questions about which decisions could be challenged.
Could a team request a review for a second yellow card?
Could it challenge a foul during the build-up to a goal?
How far back should VAR examine the attacking phase?
A challenge system could improve accountability, but it would need strict rules to prevent abuse.
The Advantages of VAR
Despite the constant criticism, VAR has produced several clear benefits.
It has corrected goals scored from offside positions.
It has identified fouls missed by the referee.
It has punished violent conduct away from the ball.
It has corrected cases where the wrong player received a card.
It has also reduced some forms of deception.
Players know that obvious dives, off-the-ball incidents and hidden acts of aggression may be detected by cameras. This does not eliminate simulation or misconduct, but it makes certain actions riskier.
VAR has also protected referees from some career-defining mistakes.
Before video review, an official could miss an obvious handball or offside and become permanently associated with the error. Today, many of those decisions can be corrected before the match restarts.
When VAR works quickly and accurately, it often receives little attention.
A goal is scored, the system confirms that the player was onside and the match continues. A dangerous tackle is reviewed, the correct red card is issued and most viewers accept the outcome.
The problem is that successful interventions are quickly forgotten, while mistakes become major news stories.
The Disadvantages of VAR
The benefits come at a significant cost.
VAR has reduced spontaneity.
Players and supporters often hesitate before celebrating important goals. Instead of reacting immediately, they wait for confirmation that no offside, foul or handball occurred during the build-up.
It has also introduced a level of technical precision that sometimes conflicts with the emotional nature of the sport.
Football was not designed to be examined frame by frame.
A player can now be offside by a margin that is invisible to the human eye. A handball can be analyzed from several angles until an official finds one image that appears incriminating.
VAR can also create the illusion that every decision has one objectively correct answer.
Many incidents do not.
Two reasonable officials may examine the same tackle and reach different conclusions. Technology can provide more evidence, but it cannot remove interpretation from the Laws of the Game.
This is why VAR sometimes transfers controversy rather than eliminating it.
Before VAR, supporters argued about what the referee saw.
Now they argue about how the referee interpreted the replay.
Has VAR Made Football Fairer?
The answer depends on how fairness is defined.
If fairness means correcting more factual errors, VAR has clearly improved football.
Goals that are obviously offside can be disallowed. Players who commit violent conduct can be punished. Mistaken identity can be corrected. Penalties missed by the referee can be awarded.
In that sense, the game is more accurate than it was before video review.
However, if fairness means complete consistency, VAR has not achieved its objective.
The same handball can still produce different decisions in different matches. Similar tackles can result in yellow cards, red cards or no punishment at all. The threshold for a “clear and obvious” error may change depending on the officials involved.
VAR has improved the amount of information available to referees.
It has not eliminated human judgment.
That distinction is essential.
The technology can show what happened. It cannot always decide what the incident means.
Would Football Be Better Without VAR?
Calls to remove VAR usually become louder after a major controversy.
Supporters miss immediate celebrations, quicker matches and the feeling that the referee’s decision was final.
There is a powerful emotional argument for returning to traditional officiating.
However, abolishing VAR would also mean accepting mistakes that could easily be corrected.
An obvious offside goal could decide a championship.
A violent challenge missed by the referee could go unpunished.
A clear penalty could be ignored even though millions of viewers immediately saw the foul.
Football would regain some spontaneity, but it would lose an important safety net.
The debate is therefore not between perfect technology and perfect human refereeing.
Neither exists.
The real choice is between human refereeing with video assistance and human refereeing without it.
VAR is unlikely to disappear because clubs, competitions and governing bodies now recognize the value of correcting major mistakes. The challenge is to ensure that the system supports the game rather than dominating it.
The Future of VAR
Football technology will continue developing.
Semi-automated offside systems will become faster and more precise. Artificial intelligence may help identify player positions, track contact and select the most useful replay angles.
Referees may eventually receive real-time information through improved communication systems.
Supporters could see clearer stadium graphics and hear live explanations of decisions.
However, more technology will not automatically solve every problem.
Artificial intelligence may determine where a player’s foot was positioned, but it will still be difficult to measure whether contact was sufficient for a penalty.
A computer may detect that the ball touched a defender’s arm, but the referee may still need to decide whether the arm was in a justifiable position.
Football’s Laws contain subjective concepts because the sport itself is dynamic and unpredictable.
Terms such as careless, reckless, excessive force, unnatural position and deliberate action require interpretation.
As long as those concepts remain part of the game, human judgment will remain essential.
Final Verdict: Has VAR Improved Football?
VAR has improved football in some important ways, but it has not delivered the certainty that many supporters expected.
It has corrected major errors and made factual decisions more accurate. It has helped referees identify incidents that would otherwise have been missed. It has also made the game more accountable in an era when every important moment is recorded from multiple angles.
At the same time, VAR has damaged the rhythm and emotional experience of football.
Reviews can take too long. Decisions are not always clearly explained. Similar incidents continue to receive different interpretations. Serious communication failures have shown that even advanced technology can be undermined by human error.
The central problem is not VAR itself.
The problem is the belief that technology can make subjective decisions completely objective.
It cannot.
Football will always involve interpretation, uncertainty and disagreement. VAR can reduce obvious mistakes, but it cannot remove controversy from a sport built on split-second decisions and passionate opinions.
The system should therefore be judged by a realistic standard.
VAR does not need to make football perfect.
It needs to make major decisions more accurate without destroying the speed, emotion and spontaneity that make the game special.
At present, it has only partially succeeded.
The technology has changed football forever, but the debate surrounding it is far from over.
Perhaps that is the final irony of VAR.
It was introduced to end arguments about referees.
Instead, it has given football an entirely new way to argue.
TechnologyHQ is a platform about business insights, tech, 4IR, digital transformation, AI, Blockchain, Cybersecurity, and social media for businesses.
We manage social media groups with more than 200,000 members with almost 100% engagement.
