{"id":684,"date":"2026-06-07T18:56:42","date_gmt":"2026-06-07T17:56:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/oliver-bogatinov.eu\/home\/?p=684"},"modified":"2026-06-07T18:56:42","modified_gmt":"2026-06-07T17:56:42","slug":"when-truth-disappears-between-football-frames","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oliver-bogatinov.eu\/home\/2026\/06\/07\/when-truth-disappears-between-football-frames\/","title":{"rendered":"When Truth Disappears Between Football Frames"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1><strong>The Philosophy of VAR Footage<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>Today\u2019s football viewer enjoys a technologically rich experience. Multiple cameras, different angles, slow\u2011motion replays and zoomed\u2011in shots allow us to see a goal or a foul from almost \u201ceverywhere\u201d. At times, it feels as if technology gives us a perfect window into reality.<\/p>\n<p><strong>For years, I\u2019ve been fascinated by how often people confuse what is <\/strong><em><strong>seen<\/strong><\/em><strong> with what is <\/strong><em><strong>real<\/strong><\/em><strong>. Football is an ideal laboratory for confirming our beliefs and exposing our illusions \u2014 both optical and mental. And these illusions affect everyone: fans, commentators, coaches, and even referees.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Let\u2019s imagine a situation: the referee awards a penalty for an alleged trip.<\/p>\n<ul role=\"list\">\n<li><strong>Footage A<\/strong> clearly shows contact.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Footage B<\/strong>, from another angle, shows no contact at all.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Fans choose the clip that confirms their belief. Referees, however, must choose the truth \u2014 or at least what is closest to it.<\/p>\n<p>Before we look at the issue from an epistemological perspective, we should ask a basic question:<\/p>\n<div><\/div>\n<h1><strong>Can video footage ever represent objective truth?<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>The short answer: <strong>no<\/strong>. Video is always an interpretation of reality, not reality itself.<\/p>\n<p>Why?<\/p>\n<ul role=\"list\">\n<li>It <strong>creates an illusion<\/strong> (something looks like contact even when it isn\u2019t).<\/li>\n<li>It <strong>hides the truth<\/strong> (contact exists, but the camera doesn\u2019t capture it).<\/li>\n<li>It <strong>distorts perspective<\/strong> (parallax, angle, distance).<\/li>\n<li>It <strong>misleads<\/strong> because it is a 2D projection of a 3D world.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>You can test parallax yourself: Close one eye, extend your index finger, then switch eyes. The finger \u201cmoves\u201d, even though it hasn\u2019t moved at all. This is exactly what happens on a football pitch.<\/p>\n<p>And interestingly \u2014 the same happens in our minds. We often \u201csee\u201d contact where there is none, and overlook the gap that is clearly there.<\/p>\n<div><\/div>\n<h1><strong>Epistemological Analysis: Four Possibilities<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>When two pieces of footage contradict each other, only four scenarios exist:<\/p>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div tabindex=\"0\" role=\"group\" aria-label=\"Scrollable table\">\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"col\">Possibility<\/th>\n<th scope=\"col\">Actual Event<\/th>\n<th scope=\"col\">Footage<\/th>\n<th scope=\"col\">Explanation<\/th>\n<th scope=\"col\">Epistemological Assessment<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">1<\/th>\n<td>There was contact<\/td>\n<td>A: contact, B: contact<\/td>\n<td>Footage consistent<\/td>\n<td>High reliability<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">2<\/th>\n<td>There was contact<\/td>\n<td>A: contact, B: no contact<\/td>\n<td>B is an illusion of separation (false negative)<\/td>\n<td>Very rare<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">3<\/th>\n<td>There was no contact<\/td>\n<td>A: contact, B: no contact<\/td>\n<td>A is an illusion of contact (false positive)<\/td>\n<td>Common<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th scope=\"row\">4<\/th>\n<td>There was no contact<\/td>\n<td>A: no contact, B: no contact<\/td>\n<td>Footage consistent<\/td>\n<td>High reliability<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>In conflicting cases, only <strong>2<\/strong> and <strong>3<\/strong> matter.<\/p>\n<div><\/div>\n<h2><strong>Possibility 2 \u2013 False Negative (the camera \u201chides\u201d contact)<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>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 \u2014 which is nearly impossible if another angle clearly shows separation.<\/p>\n<div><\/div>\n<h2><strong>Possibility 3 \u2013 False Positive (the camera \u201ccreates\u201d contact)<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>This is very common. Apparent contact can be created by:<\/p>\n<ul role=\"list\">\n<li>overlapping legs in 2D space<\/li>\n<li>camera angle<\/li>\n<li>perspective<\/li>\n<li>parallax<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Epistemologically, <strong>possibility 3 is far more likely<\/strong> than possibility 2.<\/p>\n<p>And here we return to the idea of illusion: sometimes we \u201csee\u201d contact because we <em>expect<\/em> it, not because it actually happened.<\/p>\n<div><\/div>\n<h1><strong>What About VAR?<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>VAR does not assess the probability of what really happened. VAR looks for <strong>clear and obvious errors<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>If the footage is conflicting, the error is not \u201cclear\u201d, and the referee\u2019s original decision must stand.<\/p>\n<p>But from an epistemological standpoint \u2014 from the perspective of how we know what we know \u2014 the likelihood that no contact occurred is <strong>very high<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<div><\/div>\n<h1><strong>A Real\u2011World Example<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>In the match <strong>Olimpija \u2013 Koper (3:3)<\/strong> in February 2026, the referee awarded a penalty to Olimpija.<\/p>\n<ul role=\"list\">\n<li>One angle showed a trip.<\/li>\n<li>Another showed a clean tackle with no contact.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Epistemological analysis suggests that contact most likely did <em>not<\/em> occur. VAR correctly followed its protocol: since the error was not \u201cclear\u201d, the referee\u2019s decision stood \u2014 even though Koper was most likely wronged, because the referee judged in favour of the less probable event.<\/p>\n<div><\/div>\n<h1><strong>A Lesson for Objective Viewers and VAR Officials<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>When dealing with conflicting footage, we must understand that:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><strong>Apparent contact is far more common than hidden contact.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Conflicting clips do not increase the likelihood of a foul \u2014 they increase the likelihood of a visual illusion.<\/p>\n<div><\/div>\n<h1><strong>Practical Guidelines<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p><strong>a)<\/strong> If one angle shows contact and another shows separation \u2192 <strong>it is more likely that no contact occurred<\/strong>. <strong>b)<\/strong> If footage shows contact but there is no change in direction, vibration, or deformation \u2192 <strong>likely an illusion<\/strong>. <strong>c)<\/strong> If footage shows separation \u2192 <strong>this is the strongest possible evidence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<div><\/div>\n<h1><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h1>\n<p>Illusion is a fascinating thing. Sometimes it is optical, sometimes mental. Sometimes the camera creates it, sometimes our mind does.<\/p>\n<p>When I began watching football footage through an epistemological lens, I realised that truth is often hidden where we least expect it \u2014 in the separation, not in the contact.<\/p>\n<p>If we want to understand truth, we must first understand illusions. Only then can we judge \u2014 both on the pitch and in front of the screen.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Philosophy of VAR Footage Today\u2019s football viewer enjoys a technologically rich experience. Multiple cameras, different angles, slow\u2011motion replays and zoomed\u2011in shots allow us to see a goal or a foul from almost \u201ceverywhere\u201d. At times, it feels as if technology gives us a perfect window into reality. For years, I\u2019ve been fascinated by how [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-684","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oliver-bogatinov.eu\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/684","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oliver-bogatinov.eu\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oliver-bogatinov.eu\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oliver-bogatinov.eu\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oliver-bogatinov.eu\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=684"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/oliver-bogatinov.eu\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/684\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":685,"href":"https:\/\/oliver-bogatinov.eu\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/684\/revisions\/685"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oliver-bogatinov.eu\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=684"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oliver-bogatinov.eu\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=684"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oliver-bogatinov.eu\/home\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=684"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}