Mr Joshua Gray
Postgraduate Researcher in Sector, Economic Equality and Responsible Finance Studies
Centre for Resilient Business and Society, Coventry University, UK
Joshua Gray is a psychology and sport management researcher. Their research focuses on the decision-making processes of sport officials, and how sport policy and fan perception can be shaped around these.
Email: grayj10@coventry.ac.uk
Dr Tom Webb
Associate Professor in Applied Global Sport Management, Centre for Resilient Business and Society, Coventry University, UK.
Dr Tom Webb is an expert in the global management, leadership, operational environment and working practices of sport officials. He has published extensively on the subject of sport officials, including 3 books and over 45 peer reviewed journal articles and book chapters. Dr Webb has worked with a number of high-profile sporting organisations such as UEFA, English FA, Dutch FA (KNVB), French FA (FFF), Italian Football Federation (FIGC), Rugby Football Union, Welsh Rugby Union, Lawn Tennis Association and World Netball, amongst others. Dr Webb’s research focuses on abuse, aggression and maltreatment of sport officials, the mental health and well-being of sports officials, recruitment and retention and the governance and careers of sport officials.
LinkedIn:
www.linkedin.com/in/dr-tom-webb
Email: tom.webb2@coventry.ac.uk
The Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system made its World Cup debut eight years ago, yet decisions being made with it are still drawing mixed reactions from players, coaches, spectators, and pundits.
In the early stages of this year’s tournament, fans and pundits generally approved of Miguel Almirón being cautioned for simulation under VAR’s new “mistaken identity” directive. FIFA, however, are being somewhat vague about the incident, presumably keen to profit from the good will whilst tacitly acknowledging that this was actually not an accurate application of the updated law. On the other hand, there have still been contentious decisions. Notably, Lionel Messi was arguably fortunate to escape a red card against Algeria for a studs-first challenge on the calf of Aissa Mandi, Kylian Mbappé was controversially denied a penalty against Senegal having been brought down by Sadio Mané, and many were surprised that the VAR was reluctant to get involved in Harry Kane’s penalty appeal against DR Congo in the knock out stages of the tournament.
Confusion also surrounded Switzerland’s penalty against Qatar, with FIFA’s semi-automated offside system not working and images of the incident not released until hours after the game. Eight years on from its initial introduction, VAR has yet to become the uncontentious, widely-respected decision-making tool that many had hoped. There is an unstated expectation that VAR should achieve 100% accuracy in making correct decisions. After all, the VAR has access to almost every conceivable camera angle and the freedom to take as long as they need to review decisions. In reality, the English Premier League believes that VAR helps lead to 96% accuracy in decision making, compared to 82% prior to its introduction.
This desire for accuracy doesn’t account for the fact that many of the decisions VAR must review – including those mentioned at the 2026 World Cup surrounding Messi, Mbappé, and Almirón – are subjective decisions. Even if the majority of people would agree that a decision should be given a certain way, it remains ultimately up to the interpretation of the referee on the pitch and the team in the VAR suite. On top of this, controversy still surrounds VAR’s intervention threshold of a “clear and obvious error.” Soccer seems to have settled on conflating “clear and obvious” with “egregious” and, as a result, there have been occasions where pundits – and even the panels which review officiating performance after games – have argued that a mistake was made on field but that it did not reach the threshold for intervention.
There is no obvious remedy to this. Recognising that most VAR decisions remain subjective would require something of a culture shift within soccer. An approach replicating the importance that rugby union puts upon what the on-field referee explains they have seen, or not seen, may be one solution to the ‘clear and obvious error’ problem. However, soccer’s governing bodies have chosen to continuously revise the laws of the game in an attempt to evolve and improve VAR.
A number of amendments to the laws were made in the run-up to the World Cup tournament, most notably around incidents reviewed by VAR, but also in attempts to reduce time wasting and to speed the game up. Some within refereeing circles argued that the aim of these changes was to make VAR smarter, not just better. One such law change was implicated in Cesar Montes’ red card against South Africa. The presence of attackers has been added as one of the denial of a goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) considerations and so, with an attacking player unmarked in the penalty box, the VAR was reluctant to intervene. Likewise, Almiron against Türkiye and Piero Hincapié against Mexico became the first two players dismissed for covering their mouths during a confrontation with an opponent, both following VAR checks.
These law changes, and how FIFA would like them interpreted, were presumably a big part of the pre-tournament camp for Team One, FIFA’s collective name for the match officials. For example, another controversial decision, Germany’s disallowed goal against Paraguay for a foul on the goalkeeper, was explained by Pierluigi Collina, FIFA’s head of referees, as the kind of blocking offense that teams had been warned would be punished ahead of the tournament. Even so, it is no surprise that there seems to have been some confusion amongst officials as to their implementation given that IFAB’s own Changes to the Laws of the Game for 2026/27 document runs to 28 pages. Based on the limited evidence from the World Cup group stage, the jury remains out as to whether these changes have made officiating better. For many spectators and pundits, there are still decisions they don’t agree with and some confusion regarding the law changes and how these are implemented. Referees and players must continue to adapt to these modifications, and domestic leagues will likely provide their officials with their own instructions for interpreting the rules in the new season. The English Premier League has already indicated that it will not implement all the law amendments.
VAR still produces debate, and despite more cameras, clearer protocols, and semi-automated systems, many of the game’s biggest decisions still depend on human judgment. Soccer needs to be clear about what VAR can and cannot do. It can improve decision-making and reduce the likelihood of egregious errors but, in a game of subjective incidents, it will not end the debates.
