How VAR is changing soccer – and its referees

The semi-finals of the FIFA World Cup are set to take place later this week, but the spotlight has shifted from the pitch to the technology that is meant to enhance fairness. The Video Assistant Referee, or VAR, was introduced to eliminate human error and subjective judgment in critical moments of the game. Yet, recent matches have exposed persistent flaws in its application, leading to widespread frustration among fans and players alike. In the quarter-finals of the FIFA World Cup 2026, several contentious decisions have sparked debate. England’s 2–1 victory over Norway was marked by two controversial calls. One saw a Norwegian goal disallowed due to an earlier foul, while another allowed an English goal despite an apparent collision between the ball and an overhead cable. Similarly, Argentina’s triumph over Switzerland was influenced by a game-ending second yellow card issued to Swiss forward Breel Embolo. These decisions highlight the ongoing challenges of using VAR effectively. At the heart of these controversies lies the snicko device, a contact-detecting tool attached to the ball, which helped confirm England’s goal. The other two decisions relied on the Video Assistant Referee, a panel of officials who review footage and provide guidance to on-field referees. Despite the technological advancements, the system has not entirely resolved the issue of subjectivity in decision-making. FIFA has long emphasized the importance of factual accuracy in football, particularly in determining whether the ball has crossed the goal line or identifying the last player to touch the ball before it goes out of play. Technology can assist in resolving such clear-cut cases. However, many decisions still hinge on judgment, whether a foul occurred, whether a penalty should be awarded, or whether a handball was intentional. Even among experts, there is often disagreement on the correct interpretation of the rules. This inconsistency has led to criticism, with some arguing that VAR has failed to deliver the clarity it promised. While the system provides additional evidence to support decisions, the final call remains with the on-field referee, who retains discretion in enforcing rules. For instance, the level of permissible contact between players varies depending on the referee’s interpretation, making it difficult to establish uniformity. Pierluigi Collina, FIFA’s head of referees, acknowledged that VAR must adapt to the way matches are officiated. He noted that if referees allow stronger contact, VAR should align with that approach, which complicates efforts to achieve consistency. This dynamic underscores the challenge of balancing technological oversight with the subjective nature of football officiating. Recent examples further illustrate the limitations of VAR. In a February match between Juventus and Inter Milan, a Juventus player made minimal contact with an Inter player, who exaggerated the incident and fell. The referee issued a yellow card, marking the player’s second offense and resulting in his dismissal. Although this scenario presented an opportunity for a VAR review, the system’s rules prohibited intervention in second-yellow-card situations. When the rule was revised, it did not satisfy all parties, with Gianluca Rocchi, the Italian league’s head of referees, expressing concerns about increased reliance on technology. As the World Cup progresses, the debate over VAR’s effectiveness continues. Fans and analysts are questioning whether more technology or stricter guidelines will ultimately resolve the core issues. With the semi-finals approaching, the pressure on the system, and on those responsible for its implementation, has never been greater. The outcome of these matches may well depend on how well the technology serves its intended purpose.