The Philosophy of VAR Footage

Today’s football viewer enjoys a technologically rich experience. Multiple cameras, different angles, slow‑motion replays and zoomed‑in shots allow us to see a goal or a foul from almost “everywhere”. At times, it feels as if technology gives us a perfect window into reality.

For years, I’ve been fascinated by how often people confuse what is seen with what is real. Football is an ideal laboratory for confirming our beliefs and exposing our illusions — both optical and mental. And these illusions affect everyone: fans, commentators, coaches, and even referees.

Let’s imagine a situation: the referee awards a penalty for an alleged trip.

• Footage A clearly shows contact.
• Footage B, from another angle, shows no contact at all.

Fans choose the clip that confirms their belief. Referees, however, must choose the truth — or at least what is closest to it.

Before we look at the issue from an epistemological perspective, we should ask a basic question:

Can video footage ever represent objective truth?

The short answer: no. Video is always an interpretation of reality, not reality itself.

Why?

• It creates an illusion (something looks like contact even when it isn’t).
• It hides the truth (contact exists, but the camera doesn’t capture it).
• It distorts perspective (parallax, angle, distance).
• It misleads because it is a 2D projection of a 3D world.

You can test parallax yourself: Close one eye, extend your index finger, then switch eyes. The finger “moves”, even though it hasn’t moved at all. This is exactly what happens on a football pitch.

And interestingly — the same happens in our minds. We often “see” contact where there is none, and overlook the gap that is clearly there.

Epistemological Analysis: Four Possibilities

When two pieces of footage contradict each other, only four scenarios exist:

In conflicting cases, only 2 and 3 matter.

Possibility 2 – False Negative (the camera “hides” contact)

This is extremely rare. For a camera to completely hide contact, the contact would need to be fully blocked, with no change in direction, no deformation, no vibration — which is nearly impossible if another angle clearly shows separation.

Possibility 3 – False Positive (the camera “creates” contact)

This is very common. Apparent contact can be created by:

• overlapping legs in 2D space
• camera angle
• perspective
• parallax

Epistemologically, possibility 3 is far more likely than possibility 2.

And here we return to the idea of illusion: sometimes we “see” contact because we expect it, not because it actually happened.

What About VAR?

VAR does not assess the probability of what really happened. VAR looks for clear and obvious errors.

If the footage is conflicting, the error is not “clear”, and the referee’s original decision must stand.

But from an epistemological standpoint — from the perspective of how we know what we know — the likelihood that no contact occurred is very high.

A Real‑World Example

In the match Olimpija – Koper (3:3) in February 2026, the referee awarded a penalty to Olimpija.

• One angle showed a trip.
• Another showed a clean tackle with no contact.

Epistemological analysis suggests that contact most likely did not occur. VAR correctly followed its protocol: since the error was not “clear”, the referee’s decision stood — even though Koper was most likely wronged, because the referee judged in favour of the less probable event.

A Lesson for Objective Viewers and VAR Officials

When dealing with conflicting footage, we must understand that:

Apparent contact is far more common than hidden contact.

Conflicting clips do not increase the likelihood of a foul — they increase the likelihood of a visual illusion.

Practical Guidelines

a) If one angle shows contact and another shows separation → it is more likely that no contact occurred. b) If footage shows contact but there is no change in direction, vibration, or deformation → likely an illusion. c) If footage shows separation → this is the strongest possible evidence.

Conclusion

Illusion is a fascinating thing. Sometimes it is optical, sometimes mental. Sometimes the camera creates it, sometimes our mind does.

When I began watching football footage through an epistemological lens, I realised that truth is often hidden where we least expect it — in the separation, not in the contact.

If we want to understand truth, we must first understand illusions. Only then can we judge — both on the pitch and in front of the screen.