The Evolution of VAR Technology: What Went Wrong in the Manchester Derby and How It Can Be Improved.

The introduction of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) was meant to eliminate clear and obvious errors, increase fairness and restore confidence in officiating. Instead, high-profile matches like the Manchester derby have shown how the technology can create more controversy than clarity. In recent encounters between Manchester United and Manchester City, VAR interventions have sparked debates about consistency, communication and the very definition of a “clear and obvious” mistake. These moments reveal not just isolated refereeing errors, but systemic issues in how VAR is implemented, interpreted and explained to supporters inside stadiums and watching at home.

The problem is no longer whether VAR should exist. The technology is here to stay. The real question is how it can evolve to fulfil its original promise without undermining the flow, emotion and human element that make football compelling. Recent derbies suggest that improvements are needed in three key areas: the standard for intervention, the communication of decisions and the integration of technology with on-field officiating.

What went wrong in the Manchester derby

In several recent Manchester derbies, VAR has been at the centre of contentious moments involving penalties, red cards and offside calls. Supporters from both sides have expressed frustration when decisions appear inconsistent or when lengthy reviews disrupt the rhythm of the match. The core issue is not always the final call itself, but the perception that similar incidents are treated differently depending on the teams involved or the stage of the game.

One recurring problem is the threshold for intervention. VAR is supposed to correct “clear and obvious” errors, but that phrase has become increasingly ambiguous. In the derby, marginal offside calls, subjective handball interpretations and debatable foul assessments have led to long reviews that leave fans uncertain about what the officials are looking for. When a decision is overturned after a two-minute review, it often feels less like correcting a mistake and more like re-refereeing the incident from a different angle.

Another issue is communication. Inside Old Trafford or the Etihad, supporters rarely know why a review is taking place or what specific aspect is being checked. Unlike other sports where officials explain decisions over the microphone, football has largely kept VAR deliberations private. This silence fuels speculation, anger and distrust, especially in heated fixtures where every call feels magnified.

The original promise versus current reality

When VAR was introduced, the goal was simple: reduce game-changing errors without turning every match into a stop-start spectacle. Early trials in other sports suggested that technology could support officials while preserving the flow of play. Football’s implementation, however, has struggled to balance precision with pace.

The current system often prioritises microscopic accuracy over practical fairness. Millimetre offside calls, frame-by-frame foul analysis and repeated angle checks have created a culture where perfection is expected, even though football is inherently fluid and subjective. In the Manchester derby, this has led to situations where a goal is disallowed for an offside so marginal it makes no practical difference to the attacking advantage, or where a penalty is awarded after a review that reinterprets contact rather than correcting a clear mistake.

This shift has changed the nature of refereeing. On-field officials sometimes hesitate to make bold calls, knowing that VAR will second-guess them. Assistant referees may delay flagging for offside, waiting to see if a goal is scored before raising the flag. The result is a game that feels more cautious, less spontaneous and more dependent on technology than human judgment.

The communication gap

One of the biggest failures of VAR is the lack of transparency. In rugby, cricket and American football, officials explain decisions to the crowd and broadcast audience. Football has resisted this approach, leaving fans in the dark during reviews. In a stadium with 75,000 supporters, silence during a VAR check creates confusion and frustration. People do not know whether the review is for a penalty, a red card, an offside or a potential foul in the build-up.

This communication gap is especially damaging in high-stakes matches like the Manchester derby. When emotions run high, uncertainty breeds anger. Supporters assume the worst, rival fans spread rumours and the narrative shifts from the quality of play to the competence of officiating.

A simple solution would be to adopt a system where the referee explains the decision over the stadium speakers and broadcast feed. Even a brief statement such as “Checking for possible handball by defender in the penalty area” or “Reviewing potential serious foul play in midfield” would reduce speculation and help fans understand the process.

Consistency remains the biggest challenge

VAR was supposed to bring consistency, but many supporters feel the opposite has happened. Similar incidents are treated differently across matches, leagues and even within the same game. In the Manchester derby, a challenge that results in a yellow card in one minute might lead to a red after VAR review in another. A handball that is ignored in one penalty area might be penalised after a review in the other.

This inconsistency stems from several factors. First, the interpretation of “clear and obvious” varies between referees. Second, VAR officials themselves may have different thresholds for intervention. Third, the pressure of high-profile matches can influence how carefully incidents are scrutinised.

To address this, football authorities need to establish clearer guidelines on what constitutes a reviewable incident. Rather than leaving it to individual judgment, there should be specific criteria for when VAR should intervene. For example, offside calls could only be overturned if the advantage is meaningful, not marginal. Handball decisions could follow a stricter definition of deliberate action rather than natural position. Red card reviews could focus only on serious foul play or violent conduct, not borderline challenges.

The human element cannot be eliminated

Football is not a perfect sport, and it never will be. Part of its beauty lies in its imperfections, the human errors that become part of folklore and the emotional reactions that make matches memorable. VAR was never meant to create a flawless game, but to prevent egregious mistakes that change outcomes unfairly.

The current system sometimes forgets this. By chasing absolute precision, it risks removing the spontaneity that makes football exciting. A goal celebrated for thirty seconds before being disallowed for a millimetre offside feels hollow. A penalty awarded after a two-minute review of a subjective foul feels manufactured.

The solution is to accept that some subjectivity is necessary. Referees should be empowered to make decisions based on the overall context of the game, not just isolated frames of video. VAR should intervene only when the error is undeniable, not when it is debatable. This approach would preserve the flow of the match while still correcting the most serious mistakes.

How technology can be improved

The technology itself is not the problem. The issue is how it is used. Several improvements could make VAR more effective without slowing the game down further.

First, semi-automated offside technology should be expanded. This system uses sensors and cameras to track player positions in real time, providing faster and more accurate offside calls. If implemented consistently, it could reduce the time spent on manual frame-by-frame analysis.

Second, time limits should be introduced for reviews. A VAR check should not exceed sixty seconds unless there is a genuinely complex situation. If a decision cannot be reached within that time, the on-field call should stand. This would prevent endless reviews that disrupt momentum.

Third, referees should be required to communicate decisions clearly. A brief explanation over the stadium speakers would reduce confusion and increase transparency. Fans deserve to know what is being checked and why a decision was made.

Learning from other sports

Other sports have successfully integrated technology without losing their essence. Rugby uses the TMO (Television Match Official) with clear communication and limited intervention. Cricket employs DRS (Decision Review System) with a finite number of challenges per team. American football uses instant replay with specific reviewable plays and time constraints.

Football could adopt similar principles. For example, each team could be given one or two challenges per match for specific incidents like penalties or red cards. This would reduce unnecessary reviews and give teams some control over the process. Alternatively, VAR could be limited to certain types of incidents, such as goals, penalties and red cards, excluding subjective fouls or marginal offside calls.

The path forward

The future of VAR depends on finding a balance between accuracy and entertainment. Technology should support referees, not replace them. Decisions should be clear, consistent and communicated effectively. The flow of the game must be preserved, and the human element should remain central.

Recent Manchester derbies have shown what happens when this balance is lost. Controversy overshadows quality, frustration replaces enjoyment and the focus shifts from players to officials. That is not what football fans want.

Improvements are possible. Clearer guidelines, better communication, time limits and semi-automated technology can all help. But the most important change is cultural. Football authorities must accept that perfection is unattainable and that some subjectivity is necessary. VAR should correct obvious errors, not re-referee every incident.

Final thought

VAR was introduced to make football fairer, but its implementation has often had the opposite effect. The Manchester derby has highlighted the problems: inconsistent interventions, poor communication and an overreliance on microscopic analysis. These issues have created frustration among supporters and undermined confidence in officiating.

The solution is not to abandon VAR, but to refine it. Clearer standards for intervention, mandatory communication of decisions, time limits on reviews and expanded use of semi-automated technology would all help. Most importantly, football must accept that some subjectivity is inevitable and that the human element is part of the sport’s appeal.

If these changes are made, VAR can fulfil its original promise: reducing game-changing errors without turning football into a stop-start spectacle. The technology is not the enemy. The way it is used is. With the right adjustments, VAR can become a tool that enhances fairness while preserving the passion, flow and unpredictability that make football the world’s most popular sport.