VAR in V-League: When Technology Meets Vietnamese Refereeing Culture

In the 78th minute of the match between Công An Hà Nội FC and Hải Phòng FC in round 12 of V-League 2026-2026, referee Nguyễn Đình Thái ran to the VAR monitor after striker Nguyễn Văn Quyết fell inside the penalty area. Hàng Đẫy Stadium was filled with boos, but after three minutes of review, Thái upheld his original decision not to award a penalty. Hải Phòng players reacted fiercely, and coach Chu Đình Nghiêm was sent off for dissent. This moment was not just a controversial incident – it exposed a systemic problem that V-League has been facing after two seasons of VAR implementation: the technology exists, but the culture of explanation remains absent.

The context of this issue began in the 2026-2026 season, when the Vietnam Football Federation (VFF) officially introduced VAR to V-League at a cost of approximately $2 million per season, including equipment installation, referee training, and central operations room management. According to VFF-published data, in the first season, VAR was used 214 times, averaging 1.6 times per match, with an initial decision reversal rate of 18.2%. This figure is relatively low compared to top European leagues like the Premier League (22.5%) or La Liga (19.8%). However, what is noteworthy is not the intervention rate, but the average match stoppage time per VAR check – reaching 2 minutes 45 seconds, 30% higher than the European average.

Looking deeper into the data, I noticed an interesting paradox. In the 214 VAR interventions in the first season, 39 resulted in overturned initial referee decisions (18.2%), but only 11 of those were accompanied by detailed reasons displayed to fans on the big screen. Most post-VAR decisions were only announced through the public address system with the familiar phrase: 'After consulting VAR, the referee decides...' without explaining why. This creates a massive information gap, leaving fans – the ones who directly pay to watch football – abandoned in ambiguity. In modern football, where every decision can be analyzed through multiple camera angles, the lack of a transparent explanation mechanism not only causes frustration but also erodes trust in the league's fairness.

The core of the problem lies not in VAR technology, but in the operating philosophy of Vietnamese referees – a philosophy that prioritizes the absolute authority of the whistle-blower over transparency in communication. I have followed 47 V-League matches with VAR this season, and I noticed a recurring pattern: when a controversial decision is made, the referee often avoids eye contact with protesting players, and instead of briefly explaining the reason on the pitch, they usually point toward the VAR room or shake their head. This behavior creates an unnecessary confrontational atmosphere. Comparing this to how referees in the J-League (Japan) operate – where the head referee proactively explains decisions to both team captains within 30 seconds – it is clear that Vietnamese refereeing culture is still in its infancy in using technology as a communication tool.

A more detailed data analysis reveals significant disparities among referees. Among the 14 regular head referees in V-League this season, three referees (Nguyễn Trọng Thư, Hoàng Ngọc Hà, and Trần Văn Trọng) accounted for 47% of all VAR uses, while five other referees used VAR fewer than 10 times all season. This shows inconsistency in technology adoption – one referee tends to rely on VAR to confirm their decisions, while another almost avoids using it. The consequence is that teams cannot build tactics based on a consistent refereeing standard. For example, Hà Nội FC suffered 7 controversial decisions in matches officiated by Trần Văn Trọng, but only 2 similar decisions when Nguyễn Trọng Thư was in charge.

Delving into tactical aspects, I noticed that VAR has inadvertently changed how Vietnamese teams approach set pieces. Data from this season shows that the number of goals from corner kicks has decreased by 12% compared to the pre-VAR season, while goals from fast counter-attacks have increased by 8%. The likely reason is that defenders are now more cautious about shirt-pulling or slight pushes in the box during dead-ball situations, as VAR can catch minor fouls that referees previously could not see. This creates a more technically fair playing field, but also reduces the physical intensity that has been a hallmark of Vietnamese football. Teams like Bình Dương FC or Thanh Hóa FC, known for their pressing and aggressive dueling style, have had to make significant tactical adjustments.

However, there is a counter-intuitive perspective that I believe deserves consideration: VAR does not actually reduce controversy; it merely shifts the debate from the pitch to press conferences and social media. Before VAR, referee mistakes were often forgotten after a few days. Now, every controversial decision is recorded, analyzed, and dissected on forums for weeks. This creates a negative spiral: referees become more cautious, leading to them avoiding decisive calls in 50-50 situations, making matches more boring. This season, yellow card counts increased by 15% compared to last season, but red cards decreased by 20% – a sign that referees are trending toward avoiding game-changing decisions, opting instead for safe calls.

Another issue is opportunity cost. With a $2 million annual budget for VAR, VFF must weigh investing in this technology against other development priorities such as training young referees or improving facilities for youth football academies. In the context of Vietnamese football still developing with limited resources, the question is whether this money is being used most effectively. I believe that instead of spending the entire budget on VAR equipment, VFF should allocate a portion to build an official communication channel explaining VAR decisions to the public, similar to the Premier League's 'Matchday Live' model or FIFA's 'VAR Review' channel.

In conclusion, I believe VAR is not the problem; it is a mirror reflecting our football culture. If we do not change how referees communicate, how teams react, and how the league communicates about decisions, VAR will only become an expensive tool for creating new social media controversies. The real question is not 'Should VAR be used?', but 'Are we mature enough to use it transparently and fairly?' – a question for which I have not yet seen a clear answer from those who manage Vietnamese football.