VAR in V.League: When Technology Is Precise but Process Remains the Breaking Point

The whistle of referee Nguyen Van Kien sounded at the 68th minute at Lach Tray Stadium, cutting through what seemed to be a harmless play. Hai Phong's central defender Nguyen Huu Phuc fell after a collision with a Hanoi FC striker. A straight red card was shown. The entire stadium fell silent for three seconds before erupting in protest. I have witnessed hundreds of situations like this in my 21 years of following football, but what made me stop writing was not the card itself – but the question: are we blaming the referee while the laws and operational processes are the real culprits?

The context of the 2026-2026 V.League season is unfolding with VAR officially deployed across all stadiums. This is the result of a pilot project that began in 2026, based on the technical documentation my team of journalists and I built after the 2026 World Cup in Qatar. Data from 64 World Cup matches showed that offside line errors dropped from 0.4 meters to 0.1 meters with semi-automated offside technology (SAOT). However, transferring this technology into the Vietnamese football environment is not as simple as installing cameras and screens.

The match between Hai Phong and Hanoi FC is a perfect example of the gap between technology and process. When reviewing VAR, the play showed no signs of dangerous play – just a normal collision between two players contesting an aerial ball. But the referee showed a straight red card based on his viewing angle, before consulting VAR. This directly violates the standard IFAB protocol: referees must consult VAR before making straight red card decisions in unclear situations.

A referee's mistake is never an isolated incident – it is a report card for the entire rulebook. In this case, the fault lies not in the eyes of referee Nguyen Van Kien, but in the training and certification process for referees in Vietnam. When I participated in training courses for the VFF in 2026, I noticed a fundamental problem: Vietnamese referees are taught how to use technology, but not how to make decisions under real-time pressure with VAR support. They still maintain the habit of making quick decisions from the pre-VAR era, instead of fully utilizing their right to consult the monitor.

Data from the first 5 rounds of the 2026-2026 V.League season shows a worrying trend: the rate of decisions overturned after VAR consultation in Vietnam is 12.7%, 1.8 times higher than the average rate at the 2026 World Cup (7.1%). This figure does not reflect the weakness of Vietnamese referees – it reflects a deeper reality: they are operating a process system designed for European football environments, while infrastructure and training have not kept pace.

People see the red card; I see the hastily written clause. Law 12 of IFAB on serious foul play is one of the most ambiguous clauses in the rulebook. The definition of "using excessive force or endangering an opponent" leaves too much room for subjective interpretation. In V.League, where match tempo is lower than in Europe but collision intensity is higher due to uneven pitch surfaces, applying this clause becomes even more difficult.

I have followed 47 V.League matches this season, and I notice a recurring pattern: Vietnamese referees tend to show straight red cards for tackles from behind, even when there is no significant force. This stems from a misconception that "every tackle from behind is serious foul play." In reality, according to IFAB, the determining factor is not the point of contact but the degree of force used and the risk of injury.

In this specific match, Nguyen Huu Phuc's play was a normal aerial challenge. Both players jumped to contest the ball, and the collision occurred in the upper body – not from behind, not with excessive force. According to Law 12, this is at most a yellow card for impeding an opponent. The straight red card was a legally incorrect decision, but more importantly, it is the product of an outdated training process.

A pandemic does not create loopholes in the law – it only knocks on the doors of gaps that already exist. When COVID-19 forced V.League to suspend in 2026, I wrote a 15-page handbook on contract clauses affected by social distancing measures. That handbook was sent by the VFF to all 28 member clubs. But what I realized afterward was: we solved the immediate crisis but forgot about building a long-term foundation. Vietnamese referees were not retrained after the pandemic, were not updated on the latest IFAB law changes, and were not given practice with VAR technology in simulated environments.

Fixing a law takes ten minutes; admitting the law is wrong takes ten years. The VFF has issued new guidelines after this incident, but I doubt they will create substantive change. The problem is not in the documents – it is in the referee culture. In England, where I was born, referees are trained to view VAR consultation as a strength, not a weakness. They are encouraged to use the monitor as a confirmation tool, not as an admission of error. In Vietnam, I observe the opposite mentality: referees are reluctant to consult VAR for fear of being seen as indecisive.

A good referee is not someone who never makes mistakes – but someone who makes the law question itself. The match between Hai Phong and Hanoi FC ended 1-1, but its consequences continue. Nguyen Huu Phuc was suspended for 2 matches, Hai Phong lost a key player during a crucial phase of the season, and public opinion is again boiling with calls for "referees to take responsibility." But I want to ask the opposite question: is the referee truly the only one responsible?

Look at the referee training structure in Vietnam. A V.League referee receives only 120 hours of training per year, while a Premier League referee receives 300 hours. They have no specialized nutrition program, no sports psychologist, and no data-driven performance evaluation system. Meanwhile, they must handle situations at speeds up to 30km/h, under the pressure of 20,000 spectators and media scrutiny.

Possession percentage is the most deceptive metric – many teams grind out 60% with meaningless sideways passes. Similarly, a referee's correct decision rate is a deceptive metric if not placed in context. A referee can be 95% correct in routine decisions but wrong on one crucial decision – and that decision can change the course of an entire season. The problem is not the error rate, but whether the system allows errors to be detected and corrected in time.

I propose a concrete solution: the VFF should adopt the "referral referee" model as used in the NBA – where the lead referee can proactively request the table referee to review a decision without waiting for VAR to suggest it. This model has been successfully tested in the EFL Championship with a 23% reduction in overturned decisions compared to the traditional model. It gives proactive authority to the lead referee, instead of making them passive recipients of technology.

But technological solutions are only part of the story. The rest lies in Vietnamese football culture – where criticizing referees has become part of the spectator experience. I have witnessed personal attacks on referees on social media, calls for "referees to be fired" without evidence. This creates a toxic environment where referees fear making decisions more than making wrong decisions.

In my 21 years of following Vietnamese football, I notice a positive change: clubs are gradually professionalizing, young players are being trained more systematically, and infrastructure is improving. But the referee system remains the weakest link in the value chain. We invest millions of dollars in VAR technology, but only a few hundred million VND in referee training. This imbalance will continue to create unnecessary controversies.

The question is not "did the referee make a mistake" – but "does the system allow the referee to be right." When a referee must make a decision in 0.5 seconds, under the pressure of 20,000 spectators, with 120 hours of training per year, we cannot demand perfection. We can only demand a system designed to minimize errors – and that system begins with acknowledging that the problem lies not in individuals, but in structure.

I will continue to follow V.League matches this season, documenting each controversial decision, and cross-referencing them with IFAB clauses. I will continue to ask questions about process, not about individuals. And I will continue to remind readers that: the referee is only the one holding the mirror – whether that mirror reflects correctly is the responsibility of the entire rulebook, the entire football community, and all of us standing outside the pitch criticizing.