VAR was supposed to eliminate controversial penalty decisions. Instead, it’s created new controversies while maintaining old ones. Serie A’s implementation has been particularly messy, generating more debate than it resolved.

The Problem VAR Was Meant to Solve

Before VAR, referees missed clear penalties and occasionally gave penalties for dives. Everyone agreed this was a problem. Video review seemed like an obvious solution: if an official misses something, another official watching replays can correct it.

The logic made sense. The implementation didn’t.

What Actually Happened

VAR introduced a new problem: the “clear and obvious” standard. VAR should only intervene if the referee made a “clear and obvious error.” But what constitutes “clear and obvious” is subjective.

In practice, this means VAR reviews create inconsistency rather than eliminating it. Some referees get sent to the monitor for mild contact, others don’t for similar incidents. The threshold varies between matches and even between halves.

Penalty decisions now involve two layers of judgment: did the referee make an error, and was that error clear and obvious? This added complexity makes outcomes less predictable, not more.

Slow Motion Distorts Reality

VAR officials review penalties in slow motion. This fundamentally changes how contact appears. A slight touch that wouldn’t affect a player at full speed looks significant in slow motion.

Studies show that slow motion review leads officials to judge challenges as more severe than they actually were. This systematic bias has increased penalty awards in leagues using VAR.

The solution seems obvious: review at normal speed first, only use slow motion for factual questions like “did contact occur” not “was it enough to give a penalty.” But this hasn’t been implemented consistently.

The Handball Chaos

Handball rules have become incomprehensible under VAR. The laws change yearly trying to find a workable standard. None have succeeded.

The current rules involve subjective judgments about “natural position” and “making the body bigger.” VAR reviews freeze frames of the moment ball contacts hand, which often shows arms in positions that look unnatural when static but were natural in motion.

This has led to penalties given for balls hitting arms in jumping challenges, balls deflecting onto arms from close range, and various situations where no one—including the referee—believes the player intentionally handled the ball.

The problem is that the laws tried to make handball objective to suit VAR review, but handball is inherently subjective. You can’t create a set of rules that produces consistent outcomes across infinite possible situations.

The Monitor Theater

When VAR recommends a review, referees walk to the monitor on the sideline. In Serie A, the referee almost always changes their decision after reviewing.

This suggests either that referees have incredibly high error rates, or that the social pressure of the review process pushes them toward changing their original judgment even when it wasn’t clearly wrong.

The monitor review is supposed to let the referee make the final decision. In practice, VAR calling the referee to the monitor signals “you got this wrong, come look.” The referee knows if they don’t change their decision, they’ll be criticized for ignoring VAR.

Inconsistency Between Matches

The biggest failure is that VAR hasn’t created consistency. Similar incidents are judged differently depending on which VAR official is working, what threshold they apply, and whether they think the referee’s original call was “clear and obvious” wrong.

Fans can point to multiple examples from the same weekend where contact that earned a penalty in one match was waved off in another. VAR was meant to eliminate exactly this kind of inconsistency.

Time and Flow

VAR reviews destroy match flow. Play stops, players surround the referee arguing, minutes pass during review, a decision is made, players argue more, eventually play restarts. The spontaneity of the game is lost.

Close penalty decisions used to be controversial for a few moments then forgotten as play continued. Now they become extended debates that dominate matches. The VAR process itself has become the main event.

The Referee Authority Problem

VAR has undermined on-field referee authority. Players appeal every touch in the box knowing VAR might overrule the referee. Referee’s original decisions matter less because everyone knows they can be changed.

This creates a strange dynamic where referees become less decisive. Why make a firm call when you know VAR will review it anyway? Better to make a soft decision and let VAR take responsibility.

What Could Fix This

Several changes might improve VAR’s penalty decisions:

• Review at normal speed first, only use slow motion for factual questions
• Raise the threshold for intervention significantly
• Only use VAR for factual questions (did the foul occur inside or outside the box) not subjective judgment calls
• Accept that some wrong decisions will stand if they weren’t clear and obvious

The fundamental question is whether we want perfect decisions or better game flow. VAR tries to optimize for perfection, which may not be possible for subjective judgments.

The Serie A Specific Issues

Serie A’s VAR implementation has additional problems. The VAR officials are drawn from the same small pool of referees who work on-field. This creates conflicts where VAR officials are reluctant to overrule colleagues they work with regularly.

Italian football culture also emphasizes dramatic responses to decisions. Players, coaches, and media dissect every VAR call extensively. This external pressure affects how VAR officials operate, making them more likely to intervene to avoid post-match criticism.

Language around VAR decisions has become increasingly defensive. Officials explain decisions using phrases that don’t clarify anything: “there was contact,” “the player went down easily,” “there’s not enough for a penalty.” These non-explanations just generate more debate.

Other Leagues’ Experiences

The Premier League has different VAR problems: they’re reluctant to intervene, leading to complaints that clear errors aren’t corrected. La Liga has issues with consistency. Bundesliga has been slightly better but still generates controversies.

No league has solved this. The problems appear inherent to video review of subjective decisions, not specific to implementation details.

The Underlying Issue

Football’s laws were written assuming a single referee making real-time decisions. They include subjective judgments because that’s how the game evolved. VAR tries to make these judgments objective and consistent, but that may be impossible.

The laws would need rewriting to suit video review. Make rules more black-and-white, reduce subjective judgment. But this changes the fundamental nature of the game. Do we want that trade-off?

Can This Be Fixed?

Probably not completely. VAR will continue generating controversies as long as it’s judging subjective decisions. The best outcome might be reducing the frequency of intervention and accepting that some wrong calls will stand.

The alternative is abandoning VAR for subjective calls and only using it for factual questions. But that won’t happen; the investment is too large and going backward is politically difficult for football authorities.

So we’ll continue with the current system, generating new controversies while claiming progress. It’s not satisfying, but it may be the reality of VAR in modern football.