A report on the debate makes that distinction central. In an offside decision, the key question is positional; in a penalty appeal, the referee must weigh the nature of the contact and its context. A replay may show a collision clearly, but clarity of image is not the same as clarity of interpretation.
That boundary matters. Treating every visible touch as a foul would replace one kind of error with another. VAR can help officials examine evidence, but football’s laws still require them to judge whether an action crosses the line.
The report also draws a comparison with AI-assisted decisions. Such systems can identify patterns or flag cases for attention, but people still have to assess context and decide how much weight to give a recommendation.
VAR works best on a similar basis: technology supplies another view, while the referee remains responsible for applying the laws. Subjectivity persists in the rules around when to intervene, what counts as a clear error and which images best show the incident. Review may relocate disagreement from the pitch to the control room, rather than end it.
More precise decisions on measurable calls can raise expectations for every review. Yet a slow-motion replay cannot settle whether a challenge was reckless or whether contact was enough for a penalty. When supporters cannot see a consistent standard, confidence can fall even if the review provides better evidence.
Ahead of the next major tournament, the focus should be on clear intervention thresholds and concise explanations for reviews. Technology can strengthen officiating, but public trust will still depend on human decisions-and on whether those decisions are applied consistently.