Silent VAR at 90+4: When Technology Is Not the Final Answer

Thong Nhat Stadium, 90+4 minute. The score is 1-1 in the match between TP.HCM Club and Hanoi FC in Round 12 of V.League 2026. The ball is lofted into the penalty area, the home team's center-back jumps to contest with the away team's striker. Both fall together. The main referee blows the whistle immediately, pointing to the penalty spot. Hanoi FC players surround the referee, protesting fiercely. The referee raises his hand to his earpiece, signaling for consultation from the VAR team. The entire stadium holds its breath. 90 seconds pass. No signal. The referee maintains his original decision. The penalty goal is scored at 90+7, sealing a 2-1 victory for the home team. But the biggest question is not whether that goal was deserved, but rather: why was VAR silent in a situation where every television angle showed the first point of contact was outside the penalty area? This is not the first time in the 2026 season that we have witnessed a controversial decision where VAR did not intervene. As of the end of Round 11, there have been 14 similar situations recorded across V.League stadiums, where the main referee made a decision that slow-motion cameras suggested might have been wrong, yet the VAR team remained silent. This number accounts for 38% of all controversial situations in the first half of the season. Discipline is not for punishment, but for the match to continue. But when technology is introduced to minimize errors, its silence creates a new type of controversy, much harder to resolve than the referee's on-field mistakes. To understand why VAR was silent in this situation, we need to look at the actual operational process of the VAR team in V.League 2026. According to tournament regulations published before the season, V.League applies the IFAB-standard VAR protocol with an intervention threshold of "clear and obvious error." However, there is an important difference: while top European leagues deploy VAR teams of 3 people including the main VAR referee, assistant VAR, and technical operator, V.League only deploys 2 people. This shortage of personnel may lead to the VAR team not having enough time to review all camera angles within the limited time frame. The first mistake is not for erasing, but for comparing later. And when I reviewed the match footage, I noticed an important detail: the first point of contact in the challenge occurred approximately 30 cm outside the penalty area line, but the player's fall happened inside the penalty area. According to football laws, the penalty decision is based on the position of the foul, not where the player falls. If the first point of contact is outside the penalty area, it should be a direct free kick, not a penalty. This is one of the most basic principles any referee must master. Same situation, two different calls – the law is never ambiguous, only the person holding the whistle is ambiguous. The question is: why did the VAR team not intervene to point out that the first point of contact was outside the penalty area? There are three possibilities: first, the VAR team did not have an angle showing the first point of contact clearly; second, the VAR team had the angle but assessed that the situation was not clear enough to intervene; third, the VAR team had the angle, assessed it as a clear error, but decided not to intervene for some reason. Based on my experience following matches over the past 5 seasons in V.League, I find the second possibility to be the most common. The problem lies in how Vietnamese VAR referees interpret the phrase "clear and obvious error." While IFAB defines this as errors that any referee would immediately recognize when reviewing footage, many Vietnamese VAR referees apply a much higher threshold, only intervening when the error is "undeniable" – meaning at least 2 camera angles must clearly show the main referee's mistake. This difference in interpretation creates a large gap between what fans expect from VAR and what VAR actually provides. I once witnessed a similar situation in the 2026 season, when the VAR referee spent 4 minutes reviewing a play where every spectator in the stadium could see the attacking player was offside by 2 meters. The result was a wrong decision being upheld, and the disadvantaged team suffered a painful defeat. A high defensive line is a bet; I only record the moment the gambler reveals the cards. In this match, TP.HCM Club's coach deployed a high defensive line averaging 42 meters throughout the second half, creating large spaces behind the defenders. This is a risky tactic, and it created the challenge situation in the 90+4 minute. But what is notable is not the tactic, but how VAR was used in this situation. When I analyzed data from the 14 silent VAR situations this season, I noticed a clear pattern: 9 of them occurred in matches played at 19:15 – V.League's main weekend kickoff time, when stadium floodlights can create complex shadows on the pitch. Is this a coincidence, or is it a technical issue that organizers have not thoroughly addressed? I believe in the naked eye, but VAR taught me that the naked eye can also lie. In this specific situation, when I reviewed footage from the frontal angle, I clearly saw that TP.HCM Club's center-back touched the ball first, and the point of contact was approximately 30 cm outside the penalty area. However, from the side angle, due to the view being obscured by the bodies of the two players, it was very difficult to determine the exact position of the point of contact. If the VAR team only had the side angle, they might not have been confident enough to intervene. But the question is: why doesn't V.League install cameras at a perpendicular angle to the penalty area line, similar to top European leagues? This is a technical infrastructure issue that organizers need to seriously consider. The pandemic taught me that rules also need to breathe. In the context of V.League 2026 facing a congested schedule due to postponed matches caused by weather, referees working at high intensity may affect the quality of their judgment. Statistics show that this season, each main referee averages 2.3 matches per week, a 15% increase compared to last season. Physical and mental fatigue can lead to hasty decisions by the main referee, and the VAR team – also working at similar intensity – may not be alert enough to catch subtle errors. From a tactical perspective, this situation also raises questions about how Vietnamese teams are using VAR as a psychological tool. In this match, after the referee pointed to the penalty spot, Hanoi FC players surrounded the referee for over 30 seconds before the referee raised his hand to his earpiece. Did this pressure influence the VAR team's decision? This is a difficult question to answer, but data from this season shows: of the 14 silent VAR situations, 8 involved the protesting team applying pressure on the referee before the referee consulted VAR. This number raises a big question about the independence of VAR decisions under pressure from teams. Another aspect to consider is the difference in how Vietnamese referees and international referees use VAR. When I follow AFC Champions League matches, I notice that VAR referees at international tournaments tend to intervene more when there is a clear error, regardless of whether the situation was requested for review or not. Meanwhile, in V.League, I observe that VAR referees usually only intervene when the main referee requests it, or when the situation leads to a goal or red card. This difference in operational philosophy may explain why many controversial decisions in V.League are not reviewed by VAR. The final and most important question: what do we need VAR for? If VAR is only used to determine situations leading to goals, red cards, and penalties – as current regulations state – then errors in other situations will continue. But if we expect VAR to correct all referee errors, we are placing an unrealistic expectation on a technology that was only designed to handle the most critical situations. This poorly managed expectation is the root of the frustration that fans and teams feel in situations like the 90+4 minute at Thong Nhat Stadium. In 5 seasons following V.League, I have never witnessed a season with as many VAR controversies as 2026. 14 silent VAR situations in 11 rounds is an alarming number. But instead of just criticizing referees, we should look at the system. V.League needs to invest more in camera infrastructure, increase the number of VAR team personnel, and most importantly, establish a clear, consistent operational process that can be verified and compared. The first mistake is not for erasing, but for comparing later. If we do not learn from these 14 situations, the 2027 season will see even more controversies. Vietnamese football is at an important turning point. With the development of the league, increasing fan interest, and sponsor attention, ensuring the fairness and transparency of referee decisions will be the determining factor for the sustainable development of the league. VAR is not the final answer to all problems, but it is an important tool that we need to use more intelligently and effectively. Discipline is not for punishment, but for the match to continue. And in this case, the discipline of the VAR process itself is what needs to be most seriously reconsidered.