Regarding VAR (Video Assistant Referee): Does its existence uphold the 'absolute fairness' of football, or does it kill the randomness, drama, and endless post-match debates that arise from officiating errors?

This is a debate that strikes at the very soul of modern football. The introduction of VAR is undoubtedly one of the most significant rule changes in the century-long history of the sport, and the controversy it has sparked precisely reflects differing understandings of the essence of "football" itself.

My view is: While VAR has indeed defended a higher degree of "fairness" in its pursuit of "procedural justice," it has also, in an unforeseen way, stifled the fluid, human drama and discourse inherent in football, which is rooted in its "imperfection." It has made football more "correct," but also potentially more "dull."

---

Part 1: What Does VAR Defend? – The Illusion of "Absolute Fairness" and the Reality of "Procedural Justice"

First, we must acknowledge that VAR's original intention was good, and it has indeed significantly reduced "egregious officiating errors."

1. Correcting "Century-Defining Blunders":

   • Maradona's "Hand of God," Lampard's "ghost goal," Henry's "handball assist"... these historic errors are almost impossible in the VAR era. From this perspective, VAR has indeed prevented teams from being unfairly eliminated due to clear referee mistakes, upholding the most fundamental "baseline of fairness" in competitive sports.

2. Providing "Procedural Justice":

   • VAR intervention establishes a reviewable, auditable process for decisions. Even if the final call remains contentious, it has at least undergone video review and multi-party discussion. This "procedural rigor" makes the final outcome more acceptable and reduces the space for post-match "conspiracy theories."

3. Deterring Violence and "Sneaky Fouls":

   • Under VAR's "all-seeing eye," pushing and shoving in the box, hidden retaliatory fouls, and other "sneaky" actions are harder to conceal. This has, to some extent, cleaned up the game and protected players.

However, VAR pursues an illusion of "absolute fairness." Football is a complex sport involving 22 players moving at high speed across a large pitch, with constant physical contact. Many decisions (like the degree of contact for a penalty) inherently lack a 100% objective standard. VAR merely transfers the final "subjective judgment" from the on-field referee to the video referee; it does not eliminate controversy entirely.

---

Part 2: What Does VAR Stifle? – Fluidity, Drama, and the "Charm of Imperfection"

The negative impact of VAR is deeper; it has changed how we watch and experience football.

1. Stifles Match "Fluidity" and "Immersion":

   • "Delayed Celebrations" after Goals: This is perhaps VAR's most anti-human aspect. Scoring a goal is the moment that most ignites fan passion and releases pent-up emotion. Now, players instinctively look towards the referee after scoring, fans hesitate to celebrate unreservedly, and everyone must wait for VAR confirmation. This experience of "delayed gratification" or even "denied satisfaction" severely disrupts the flow and emotional continuity of the match.
   • Prolonged Waits: VAR reviews often take several minutes, breaking the match's tense rhythm and causing the emotions of players and spectators to cool rapidly. What could have been an end-to-end thriller can become fragmented due to multiple VAR interventions.

2. Stifles the "Drama" and "Narrative" Born from "Errors":

   • A significant part of football's charm lies in its uncertainty. Errors, while unfair, are inherently part of the game's drama.
   • Heroes and Tragedies: One error can create a tragic hero (like Lampard) or spawn a controversial legend (like Maradona). These human stories are what fans passionately discuss decades later. VAR makes matches "correct," but potentially also more "mediocre."
   • "Spot-the-Difference" Style New Controversies: VAR hasn't eliminated controversy; it has created new ones. Like "hairline" offsides – using lines to determine if a player's shoulder or toe was offside by 1-2 centimeters in pursuit of pixel-perfect accuracy. While "absolutely correct" by the letter of the law, such calls often feel absurd in spirit, contradicting the offside rule's original intent. It kills the grand narratives born from errors, replacing them with endless trivial debates about the rules themselves.

3. Weakens the Referee's "Authority" and "Humanity":

   • The referee was once the absolute authority on the pitch; their decision, right or wrong, was part of the game. This itself tested players' emotional management and teams' adaptability.
   • Now, the referee's authority is diluted by technology. They resemble more of a process executor. The "human fallibility" inherent in errors, this very imperfection, was part of the charm of football as a "human game."

Conclusion: A "Faustian Bargain" – Trading Soul for Correctness

VAR's existence feels like a Faustian bargain. We trade away part of football's raw, wild, uncertain "soul" for a higher degree of technology-guaranteed "correctness."

• If you believe football's essence is "absolute competitive fairness," you will champion VAR. You want the result decided as much as possible by player skill and performance, not by chance errors.
• If you believe football's essence is "passionate, story-driven drama," you may resent VAR. You long for the era of unrestrained goal celebrations and cherish the imperfect, yet endlessly discussable, legendary tales.

Personally, I believe the current VAR system is still in a phase requiring constant optimization and improvement. The future direction may not be a binary choice of "keep" or "scrap," but rather how to make VAR interventions faster, more transparent, and reserved for correcting "clear and obvious" errors, rather than obsessively pursuing pixel-perfect "absolute correctness." This is the path to finding a better balance between "upholding fairness" and "preserving football's magic."