The recent football championships, such as the Arab Cup, and the wide refereeing debate that accompanied them, have reopened an old-new discussion about the role of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) technology, and the limits of its ability to achieve justice on the pitch.
Between those who see it as a guarantee of fairness, and those who consider it an additional source of controversy, a deeper question emerges… Is the problem with the technology, or with our understanding of the concept of refereeing justice itself?
Since the adoption of VAR, this technology has not been presented as an "alternative referee," but rather as an aid aimed at reducing obvious and critical errors, without undermining the referee's discretionary power. However, practical experience has shown that however precise the technology is, it cannot eliminate the human element and cannot decisively resolve every inherently disputable situation.
It is important to distinguish between two types of errors that often get confused in public discussion… the clear refereeing mistakes, such as offside situations or incorrect goal scorings, which are verifiable by technology.
And judgment errors, which are related to the interpretation of events, such as the nature of contact, or assessing intention or force.
VAR was designed to intervene only in the first type, not the second. When it is required to intervene in discretionary matters, it transforms from an aid to a party in the controversy, a role it was not intended for.
Is VAR a tool of justice or an aid?
From a regulatory standpoint, the final decision remains with the referee on the field, even after reviewing the screen. VAR does not transfer responsibility from the referee to the technology, nor does it create an independent decision-making center. Therefore, the talk of a "pure technological justice" overlooks a fundamental truth that technology does not make the decision, but rather it provides information.
Here it is important to emphasize that a refereeing mistake, in the sports framework, does not necessarily entail legal responsibility, as long as it is not associated with malice or a severe breach of regulations. Sports refereeing is based on the entrenched principle that an error is part of the game and is not always subject to questioning.
The deeper issue in the refereeing controversy does not always relate to achieving the "fair outcome" as the audience sees it, but rather ensuring that the decision was made through a fair, clear, and consistent process.
Sporting justice, like legal justice, is not measured only by the parties' acceptance of the result, but by the integrity of the process that was taken to reach it.
When the referee adheres to the adopted protocol, and the VAR technology is used within its regulatory limits, and discretionary power is exercised without abuse or deviation from the framework, then the subsequent controversy becomes part of the nature of sports competition, not evidence of a flawed refereeing system.
Is artificial intelligence the next referee?
The question that imposes itself today is not limited to evaluating the VAR, but extends to the future of sports refereeing in the era of artificial intelligence. Algorithms have already begun to intervene in nearly-automated offside calls, motion analysis, angle interpretation, timing of decisions, and even evaluation of referees' performance.
However, this development opens a legitimate legal and ethical door …
If the smart system makes a mistake, who is responsible?
The programmer? The developing company? The association? Or does the final decision remain human no matter how the tools evolve?
It is likely that the future of refereeing will not be purely artificial intelligence, but a hybrid model that combines advanced technology and human oversight, within a clear legal framework that defines responsibilities and prevents algorithms from becoming an "unaccountable judge."
Sporting justice, like legal justice, is not reduced to a screen or algorithm, but relies on a precise balance between the human, the technology, and the governing text.
