System Error or Human Error: When VAR Becomes a Power Performance

The match between Hanoi Police Football Club and Nam Dinh Football Club at Hang Day Stadium on August 13, 2026, ended with a 2-1 score in favor of the home team. But what got the 14,000 spectators at the stadium talking was not the three goals, but a situation that occurred in the 78th minute. Referee Nguyen Manh Hai stopped the match for nearly four minutes to review a collision between Hanoi Police striker Nguyen Van Toan and Nam Dinh defender Nguyen Huu Tuan inside the penalty area. After consulting the sideline monitor, Mr. Hai decided not to award a penalty. The stands reacted fiercely. But the more noteworthy detail lay in something few noticed: During those four minutes, the big screen at Hang Day Stadium did not replay any camera angle for the spectators. The fans only saw the referee walking around, heard the whistle, and waited. They were deprived of the right to see what the referee was seeing. That was when I realized a much more fundamental issue than the penalty decision itself. I have spent 29 years following football, 8 World Cups, 8 Olympic Games, and especially seven years dedicated to VAR analysis work in Chengdu. During that time, I have built a personal database of viewing angle errors, recording every controversial incident and cross-referencing it with camera positions. I learned something that perhaps few want to admit: Most VAR controversies are not about the rules, but about the fact that we are not allowed to see the same thing. Back to the situation at Hang Day. According to the post-match report from the Vietnam Football Federation Referees Committee, the VAR team checked this situation from three camera angles. The main camera was positioned high along the touchline, the second from behind the goal, and the third from the midfield area. None of the camera angles were positioned level with the plane of the collision. This is an issue I have noted since 2026, when I analyzed 147 controversial situations in the Chinese Super League. In 12 offside cases that were misjudged, the error was not with the referee but with the camera not being placed in the right position to capture the horizontal plane. I found the mistake not in the center of the pitch, but at the edge of the frame. What is notable is that in the case of Nguyen Van Toan and Nguyen Huu Tuan, the distance between the two players at the moment of collision was only about 40 cm. With Van Toan's movement speed in that phase recorded at 28.4 km/h, and Huu Tuan retreating at 19.2 km/h, the actual contact time lasted only about 0.12 seconds. From the main camera angle, the two players almost overlapped. From the behind-goal angle, Huu Tuan's shadow obscured part of Van Toan's leg. Only the midfield camera could see most clearly, but this angle was placed too far away, about 45 meters, causing the image to be noisy. This is a problem I call the viewing angle paradox: The more cameras, the more angles, but if no angle is placed in the right spot, we only create more noise, not more truth. More context about this match needs to be mentioned. This was round 12 of the V.League 1, a phase where the title race was becoming intense. Hanoi Police were chasing Nam Dinh with only a two-point gap in the standings. A penalty in the 78th minute could completely change the landscape of the entire season. The pressure on referee Nguyen Manh Hai was enormous, not only from the stadium crowd but also from public opinion. In the three days before the match, two of Vietnam's largest sports newspapers published analyses of this referee's controversial decisions during the season. One article even statistically showed that Mr. Hai's penalty award rate was 34% lower than the average of other referees in V.League 1. These numbers created a bias before the match even began. But let's temporarily set aside the referee story. What I want to focus on is a less-discussed aspect: How VAR is being operated in V.League 1. According to current regulations of the Vietnam Football Federation, last updated in June 2026, the VAR system at V.League 1 matches must ensure a minimum of four camera angles. However, this regulation does not specify camera positions. There is no requirement for at least one camera angle to be placed level with situations that may occur inside the penalty area. There is no standard for how cameras must be calibrated to minimize viewing angle errors. This is a loophole in the system that I have noted for many years. In a 2,400-word analysis I published on a blog specializing in football law in July 2026, after the World Cup final between France and Croatia, I pointed out that in the situation where referee Nestor Pitana awarded a penalty to France after the ball touched Ivan Perisic's hand, only one of six main television camera angles showed the Croatian player's arm in a position the referee deemed unnatural. And that angle was precisely the only one the referee was shown in the VAR room during 1 minute and 47 seconds. It took 37 reviews before I understood that the human eye is not a measuring stick. I reviewed that situation dozens of times, from every possible angle, and what I realized was: The problem was not whether the referee was right or wrong, but that he had no opportunity to see the opposite. At Hang Day, the story is likely similar. Referee Nguyen Manh Hai was shown three camera angles. He reviewed them repeatedly for nearly four minutes. But if all three camera angles could not clearly show the collision situation due to obstruction or distance, then reviewing multiple times only reinforced his initial decision. This is a psychological effect I call confirmation bias in the VAR room. When a referee already has a decision in mind, reviewing camera angles that are not clear enough will cause them to tend to seek evidence to reinforce that decision, rather than change it. A study I referenced from the European Sports Psychology Research Association, published in March 2026, showed that referees tend to maintain their initial decision in 68% of cases when reviewing VAR, even when new evidence is unclear. This rate increases to 82% when the referee is highly experienced, and decreases to 54% when the referee is new. This means: The more experienced, the harder to change. That is a paradox of the refereeing profession. But the story does not stop there. There is another aspect that I consider more important than all: The spectators. During the four minutes of VAR review at Hang Day, spectators were not shown any images. They just sat and waited. Meanwhile, in major leagues like the Premier League or La Liga, the big screen at the stadium often replays VAR situations so spectators can understand the reason behind the referee's decision. This not only helps reduce tension in the stands but also creates transparency. Spectators have the right to know what is happening on the pitch, especially when they have paid for tickets and spent time coming to the stadium. In V.League 1, not replaying VAR situations on the big screen is a deliberate decision, according to an official from the tournament organizing committee with whom I spoke. The stated reason is to avoid putting additional pressure on referees and to avoid negative reactions from spectators. But from my perspective, this is a mistaken approach. Hiding information does not reduce pressure, it only increases suspicion. The empty stadiums of 2026 showed me: VAR does not save football, it exposes football. When there are no spectators in the stadium, we can see more clearly than ever that VAR is not a technological solution, it is a social process. And in that process, transparency is the key factor. Looking back at the history of VAR in Vietnam, a fairly clear development trajectory can be seen. VAR was first trialed in V.League 1 in 2026, officially applied from the 2026 season. In the first three seasons, the average number of VAR interventions was about 2.3 per match. By the 2026 season, this number had increased to 4.1 per match. The number of cameras also increased from three to six. But what is notable is that the number of controversies did not decrease. According to a statistic from Bong Da newspaper, in the 2026 season, there were 47 controversial VAR situations, compared to 31 in the 2026 season. More cameras, more VAR, but more controversies. This leads me to a conclusion I consider core: The problem is not with the technology, but with how we operate that technology. We think we are seeking justice, but it turns out we are only seeking a prettier camera angle. VAR cannot solve football's root problem, which is subjectivity in human judgment. It only transfers that subjectivity from the pitch into a closed room, where spectators cannot see. And in some cases, it even exacerbates the problem, because now we have an additional layer of decisions to argue about. Returning to the match at Hang Day. After the match, the Nam Dinh coach made harsh statements about the referee's decision. He said VAR was not used properly and that the no-penalty decision deprived his team of a chance to earn points. On the Hanoi Police side, their coach argued the decision was correct and that VAR did its job. Both sides have their arguments, and both are looking at the same situation but seeing different things. This is precisely the nature of the problem. In modern football, we have given technology a power that sometimes we ourselves do not realize. We believe cameras can see everything, that VAR can fix every mistake. But the truth is: Cameras only see what they are placed to see. VAR only fixes what it is allowed to fix. And humans, no matter how many times they review, are still human, with all their cognitive limitations and unconscious biases. So what is the solution? From my perspective, there are three fundamental changes that need to be made. First, there needs to be clear regulations on camera positions, including a mandatory requirement for at least one camera angle placed level with situations that may occur inside the penalty area. Second, the VAR process needs to be made transparent by replaying situations on the big screen at the stadium, so spectators can understand the reason behind decisions. Third, there needs to be an independent evaluation mechanism for VAR decisions, based not only on the final outcome but also on the decision-making process. I have spent 29 years following football, and during that time, I have never seen a technological solution that can completely replace human judgment. VAR is a tool, and like any other tool, it depends on who uses it. If we want VAR to truly improve football, we need to start by improving how we use it. Not by adding more cameras, but by placing cameras in the right spots. Not by hiding information, but by sharing more information. And not by believing technology can solve every problem, but by acknowledging that technology can only help us make better decisions, not perfect decisions. Imperfection is part of football. It is part of being human. And perhaps, instead of trying to eliminate it with technology, we should learn to accept it, and focus on making the decision-making process more transparent and fair. That is what I believe will truly improve Vietnamese football.