VAR and the Silent Whistle: When Technology Replaces the Human Voice

The match between CAHN FC and Thép Xanh Nam Định FC in Round 12 of the 2026-2026 V-League ended 2-1, but no one is talking about tactics or goals. All attention is on a moment in the 83rd minute: Nam Định striker Nguyễn Xuân Son fell in the penalty area after a collision with central defender Bùi Hoàng Việt Anh. Referee Ngô Duy Lân pointed to the spot, but VAR immediately intervened. The screen at Hàng Đẫy Stadium displayed 'Checking Penalty'. The stadium fell silent. No one understood what was happening, including the players. After a 3-minute wait, referee Ngô Duy Lân ran to the monitor, reviewed the footage, and reversed his decision: no penalty. Nam Định fans reacted furiously, players surrounded the referee, but the decision was made. Having followed Vietnamese football for five years, I've noticed a pattern: VAR is creating a new crisis of trust, not because it's wrong, but because it's silent. The context of the issue lies in how VAR is operated in the V-League. According to FIFA regulations, VAR only intervenes in four situations: goals, penalties, direct red cards, and mistaken identity. In Vietnam, VAR has been applied since the 2026-2026 season, but only in selected matches, mainly high-profile or high-risk games. This creates an inequality: some matches have VAR, some don't. In the CAHN vs. Nam Định match, VAR was used, but its operation raised questions about transparency. Referee Ngô Duy Lân did not explain the reason for his changed decision. He just shook his head and signaled to continue play. Fans in the stadium and millions watching on TV were left in the dark about why the initial decision was overturned. Football laws state that referees can explain their decisions after the match, but this rarely happens in the V-League. Let's look at data from last season. According to VPF statistics, in the 2026-2026 season, VAR was used 89 times in 182 matches, about 49% of games. Of those, 23 penalty decisions were overturned after VAR review, and 7 red cards were rescinded. But in no match did a referee publicly explain the reason for the change. This creates an information gap. Fans don't know why their team's decision was rejected. They just see the referee run to the monitor, watch the screen, and change the decision. This leads to suspicion about VAR's fairness. A study from Beijing Sport University shows that in leagues with VAR, the rate of wrong decisions drops from 12% to 4%, but fan dissent increases from 18% to 32%. The reason is that fans don't understand why decisions change. They need explanations, not just outcomes. This brings me to a counterintuitive perspective: VAR is not just a technical tool, but also a communication tool. It doesn't just correct referee errors; it creates a new layer of silence. Before VAR, the referee was the only voice on the pitch. He blew the whistle, signaled, and explained through body language. After VAR, the referee becomes a middleman, relaying decisions from a dark room far away. He is no longer the decision-maker, but merely the announcer. This reduces the referee's accountability to the public. When a wrong decision is made, the referee can say 'that was VAR's decision', and VAR can't respond. In the CAHN vs. Nam Định match, referee Ngô Duy Lân wasn't the final decision-maker. He was just the enforcer. But he was the one who faced the wrath of players and fans. He was surrounded, cursed, and criticized on social media. Meanwhile, the real decision-makers – the VAR team – remained in a closed room, unknown to everyone, with no one knowing who they are, what they saw, or how they decided. This leads to a big question: does VAR make football fairer, or just more complicated? I believe the answer lies in between. VAR doesn't make football fairer, but it makes it more accurate. However, this accuracy comes at the cost of transparency. When a wrong decision is corrected by VAR, fans don't know why. They just see the result. This creates a sense of injustice, whether the decision is right or wrong. Look at the match between Hà Nội FC and TP.HCM FC in Round 8 this season. In the 67th minute, TP.HCM striker Nguyễn Văn Tùng scored, but VAR detected an offside in the buildup. The goal was disallowed. TP.HCM fans reacted angrily, claiming VAR robbed them of a legitimate goal. But upon reviewing multiple angles, the offside was clear. However, no one explained this to them. They just saw the goal disallowed, and they were furious. This shows a major issue: VAR lacks the ability to communicate with the public. From my experience watching matches, I've noticed that top European leagues have addressed this by broadcasting audio exchanges between the referee and the VAR team. The Premier League experimented with this in the 2026-2026 season, with very positive results. Fans can hear the referee say 'I saw the play, no offside', or 'I need to review that situation'. This creates transparency and reduces anger. In the V-League, we don't have this yet. We only have a dark screen, a 'Checking' message, and a silent referee. This not only reduces fan trust but also diminishes the quality of the match. When fans don't understand what's happening, they think something is fishy. They think the referee is biased, or VAR is being manipulated. This is dangerous, as it erodes the foundation of football: trust. So what's the solution? I'm not proposing to abolish VAR, as that would be a step backward. I propose improving how VAR communicates. First, VPF should require referees to explain their decisions after consulting VAR, at least in televised matches. Second, VPF should release audio exchanges between referees and the VAR team for important matches, as a way to increase transparency. Third, VPF should train referees in communication skills, not just in decision-making, but also in explaining decisions to fans. This would not only increase trust but also help referees become leaders on the pitch, rather than mere enforcers. Looking back at the CAHN vs. Nam Định match, I can't definitively say whether referee Ngô Duy Lân's decision was right or wrong. I don't have access to the angles the VAR team reviewed. I can only look at the outcome and reactions. But I can say that if the referee had explained his reasoning, if he had said 'I reviewed the situation and I saw the Nam Định player dived', the anger would have been significantly reduced. His silence was a mistake, not because his decision was wrong, but because he didn't explain it. This shows that VAR is not just a technical tool, but also a communication tool. And we need to learn how to use it effectively. My first mistake as a commentator was mispronouncing player Nguyễn Quang Hải's name as 'Quang Hãi'. I didn't correct it immediately, and it became an embarrassing memory. But I learned from that mistake that silence is never a solution. If I don't explain to the audience that I was wrong, they'll think I don't know what I'm talking about. Similarly, if a referee doesn't explain his decision, fans will think he doesn't know what he's doing. This not only damages the referee's credibility but also the entire league's. In football, transparency is not just a moral value, but a strategy to maintain fan trust. And trust is the only thing that keeps football alive. So, the final question is: are we ready to let referees speak their minds? Or will we continue to let technology replace the human voice? I don't have the answer, but I know that if we don't change, we'll face increasingly larger crises of trust. VAR is a wonderful tool, but it's just a tool. It can't replace the referee, and it can't replace communication. The referee is the only one who can tell fans 'I saw that, and here's why I decided this'. That's something technology can never do. And that's why we need to listen to the referee's voice, rather than just staring at the screen.