VAR and the 90+4' Turnaround: When Technology Goes Silent, the Referee Must Bear Responsibility

Lach Tray Stadium, 21:30, a late August night. The match between Hai Phong and Thép Xanh Nam Định was in the fourth minute of stoppage time. The score was 2-2. The ball was floated into the box, young striker Nguyễn Văn Trường of Hai Phong rose high to head the ball, it went into the far corner. The entire stand erupted. But the main referee Nguyễn Đình Thái pointed towards the assistant referee's flag: offside. There was no VAR in this match. No big screen. Only a flag raised in a silence that was suffocating. I rewatched this situation at least thirty times that night, on my old laptop in the corner of my office. From the main camera angle, it seemed that Văn Trường was offside by about 0.3 meters. But from the auxiliary camera angle, shot from the opposite side, the shoulder of the Nam Định defender was lower than Văn Trường's shoulder. This is a situation where, if VAR were available, it would have been carefully reviewed. But there was no VAR. And the referee had to make a decision in a split second. The context of this match is very important. Hai Phong was 12th on the V-League table, only 2 points above the relegation zone. Nam Định was competing for the championship. A draw was a favorable result for both, but a goal in stoppage time could change the entire landscape. The pressure on the referee was immense. In their last three matches, Hai Phong had scored 5 goals from set pieces, and they were on a 4-match unbeaten run at home. Nam Định, on the other hand, was in high form with 3 consecutive wins, but they often played worse when pressed in the final minutes. A technical analysis of this situation reveals a larger issue. When I reviewed Văn Trường's movement, he had made a very intelligent run. He didn't run straight into the box, but angled towards the right wing, creating space for his teammate. The pass from midfielder Lương Xuân Trường was a low, cutting pass that tore through the defense. Văn Trường touched the ball before the Nam Định defender could react. But the problem was the timing of the pass, and Văn Trường's position relative to the last Nam Định defender. From the main camera angle, he seemed slightly ahead. But from the auxiliary angle, I saw the shoulder of the Nam Định defender, number 4, was in a lower position. This is an extremely tight offside situation, where even with VAR, determining it would require precise positioning technology. What concerns me is not whether the decision was right or wrong, but the decision-making process. Referee Nguyễn Đình Thái did not have enough information to make an accurate call. The flag was raised, and he trusted his assistant. This was a systemic decision, not the fault of one individual. But in modern football, when technology has become the standard in major leagues, the fact that V-League still does not apply VAR in all matches is a serious problem. I remember 2026, when I worked at the World Cup in Russia. I missed a handball situation by Gerard Piqué in the box. I blamed myself for three weeks. I rewatched all 64 matches of the tournament, noting every VAR situation. I learned that the biggest mistake is not blowing the whistle, but not daring to accept your own whistle. And I also learned that when technology goes silent, the referee must bear responsibility. But that responsibility should not rest on their shoulders alone. There is a counter-intuitive perspective here. Many will say that without VAR, the referee must be more decisive. But I argue the opposite is true. When there is no VAR, the referee should be more cautious, should consult the assistants more, and should be willing to change their decision if new information emerges. In this situation, referee Nguyễn Đình Thái did not consult the second assistant, who was in a position to see more clearly. He was too hasty in accepting the main assistant's decision. This was a procedural error, not a judgment error. I have followed Vietnamese football since 2026, when I was a young reporter. I have seen the remarkable development of this league. But I have also seen gaps in infrastructure and technology. V-League has made great strides in professionalization, but the lack of VAR in some matches is a blind spot. Not because of cost, but because of inconsistency in application. Some matches have VAR, some do not. This creates injustice between teams. Back to the situation at Lach Tray. After the match, Hai Phong's coach Chu Đình Nghiêm made harsh statements about the referee's decision. He said it was a "legal goal" and that "the referee stole our victory." I understand his frustration. But I also know that, from my perspective, this situation is not clear enough to make a definitive conclusion. I have reviewed it three times, and my conclusion is: no change. This is a situation where even with the best technology, determining it would be controversial. But one thing is certain: if VAR were available, the decision would be based on evidence, not on instinct. And that is what Vietnamese football needs to aim for. I am not saying VAR will solve all controversies. I have seen situations where VAR still caused controversy, because determining offside still depends on how the lines are drawn. But VAR would at least create a more transparent process. I want to talk about another aspect of this match. That is the performance of Nguyễn Văn Trường. He is only 19 years old, and this is his first season playing regularly in V-League. I have followed him since he was in the U19 team, when I sent an analysis report to Hai Phong's technical director. I see in him a rare talent: intelligent positioning, good ball control, and a resilient fighting spirit. In this match, he created three dangerous chances, and the disallowed goal was a world-class movement. I hope he will not be affected by this decision. I hope he will continue to develop. I also want to talk about referee Nguyễn Đình Thái. I know he is an experienced referee, having officiated more than 100 V-League matches. He is not someone who likes controversy. But in this situation, he made a procedural error. He did not use all the tools available to him. He could have consulted the second assistant, who was in a better position. He could have taken a few more seconds to think. But he did not. And that makes me feel sorry. The biggest mistake is not blowing the whistle, but not daring to accept your own whistle. I learned that from my own mistake. And I want to share that with Vietnamese referees. Don't be afraid to be wrong. Be afraid of not daring to face your own mistakes. The match ended 2-2. Hai Phong gained a point, but they are still in the danger zone. Nam Định continues their championship race. But the story of this match is not the score. The story is about a controversial decision, about the inconsistency in applying technology, and about the responsibility of those who hold the whistle. I rewatched this situation at 2 AM, after everyone had gone home. I paused every frame, analyzed every movement. And I realized that there are offside errors that no one sees, but the camera never blinks. The problem is, when there is no camera, we have to trust humans. And humans can always make mistakes. I don't have a perfect answer to this problem. But I know that Vietnamese football needs to invest more in technology, and needs to train referees better. We cannot change the past, but we can learn from it. And I hope that, in the future, situations like this will be handled more fairly. A millimeter changes the fate of a team; I have learned to live with that. But I still believe that justice never sleeps. It just needs a little more time, and a little more technology.