VAR in Vietnam: When Technology Meets the Boundary of Trust

Minute 72 of the match between Hanoi FC and Hanoi Police FC in round 12 of V.League 2026-25. The ball touches the arm of the away defender inside the box after a challenge. The referee does not immediately blow the whistle but raises his hand to his earpiece, signaling to wait. My Dinh Stadium holds its breath. Thirty seconds later, the whistle sounds: penalty for Hanoi FC. In the stands, a group of away fans holds up a banner: "VAR, look carefully." At that moment, I realized I was no longer watching a simple football match. I was watching a process audit — where technology, humans, and trust collide. Having followed Vietnamese football since the early days of referee-assist technology, I see something interesting: VAR has not only changed how referees make calls, but also how fans view mistakes. Before, a wrong decision ended in an argument. Now, it ends with a question: "Why did VAR not intervene?" This shift — from arguing about results to questioning processes — signals that Vietnamese football is entering a new era. The context of this change began in the 2026-24 season, when the Vietnam Football Federation (VFF) officially implemented VAR in V.League after years of trials. Data from VPF shows that in the first season, VAR was used an average of 4.2 times per match, with a 72% success rate in correcting clear errors. This places Vietnam among the leading Southeast Asian nations in technology adoption, second only to Thailand. But these dry numbers do not tell the whole story. The real story lies in those moments when VAR — and the people operating it — became the center of suspicion. Consider a specific incident last October. In a match between Nam Dinh FC and Binh Duong FC, a home team goal was disallowed after VAR detected an offside in the build-up. Camera angles showed the attacking player was about 20 cm behind the last defender. A legally correct decision, but in the stands, thousands of Nam Dinh fans reacted furiously. They could not see what VAR saw. They only saw a goal erased by an invisible force. This is the boundary between accuracy and trust — where technology, however perfect, cannot replace the human need for explanation and understanding. Delving deeper into the operational mechanics, I recognize a systemic issue rarely mentioned. VAR in Vietnam faces a human-resource problem. As of December 2026, VFF has only 12 certified VAR teams, while each V.League round requires at least 4 teams for 4 matches. This means VAR referees must work at high intensity, constantly traveling between stadiums, facing great psychological pressure. In an interview I conducted with an anonymous VAR referee, he shared: "We not only read situations on screen, but also read the atmosphere in the stadium. A correct decision arriving 30 seconds late can create a storm in the stands." That statement reminds me of the principle I have always pursued: the referee is the only person on the pitch not allowed to be led by emotion. But what happens when those operating the technology begin to feel the pressure from the stands? Data from V.League matches shows a notable trend. In the first 12 rounds of the 2026-25 season, the average time for VAR to reach a decision was 72 seconds, 15 seconds faster than last season. But interestingly, the rate of decisions overturned after the referee reviewed the monitor increased to 45%, compared to 31% last season. This suggests referees are increasingly trusting their own on-field review rather than relying solely on VAR recommendations. This could be a positive signal — referees are taking more responsibility — or it could indicate an underlying conflict between two decision-making levels. In a match between Hai Phong FC and Thanh Hoa FC, the referee spent 3 minutes reviewing a situation VAR recommended as no foul. The final result was still no penalty, but those 3 minutes created a significant psychological gap for players of both teams. Another aspect I want to explore is the difference in how VAR is applied across matches of varying importance. In derbies or title-deciding matches, I observe a trend where referees rely more on VAR — almost delegating full responsibility to technology. Conversely, in matches between mid-table teams, referees tend to make decisions confidently without VAR intervention. This inconsistency, in my observation, is not the fault of individual referees but a consequence of lacking a standardized process for each situation type. The laws never stand outside the match; they are a second match running in parallel. And this second match, in Vietnam, is still being written day by day. I want to offer a counter-intuitive perspective. Many believe VAR reduces football's appeal by eliminating "classic" controversies. But following V.League matches, I observe the opposite. VAR does not diminish appeal; it reshapes it differently. Instead of arguing about "whether it was a foul," fans now argue about "why VAR intervened here but not there." This is a more sophisticated debate, requiring deeper understanding of laws and processes. Arguably, VAR is quietly raising Vietnamese fans' understanding, turning them from passive viewers into amateur analysts. Football has no VAR, only blind spots waiting to be revealed. With VAR, those blind spots are revealed faster, but also create new ones — and these new blind spots are what make the game more compelling than ever. Looking ahead, I believe publicizing the conversations between the referee and the VAR team, as some European leagues are experimenting with, would be a major step forward for Vietnamese football. This would help fans understand the decision-making process, transforming suspicion into understanding. I have witnessed this model working effectively in the Premier League, where publishing audio recordings significantly reduced disputes over referee decisions. Of course, this requires courage and transparency from VFF, as well as referees' acceptance of putting their work under the spotlight. But if we do not start somewhere, we will remain trapped in a cycle of suspicion. Every foul is a question of intent; data only gives us the answer about consequences. But in the context of VAR in Vietnam, the most important question is not about a specific play. It lies in whether we — those who work in football, fans, and even writers like me — are willing to accept a reality: technology cannot be perfect, but processes can be. And it is the process, not technology, that builds trust. VAR does not fix mistakes; it only changes who bears responsibility. Before, the referee bore responsibility. Now, it is an entire system. And when a system bears responsibility, it must be more transparent, more consistent, and above all, able to explain itself to those it serves.