Controversial moment in Hanoi derby: When VAR stays silent, the rules speak

The Hanoi derby between Hanoi FC and Cong An Hanoi FC (CAHN) in round 12 of V-League 2026 ended 1-1, but the aftermath lingers due to a non-penalty call in the 78th minute. The incident occurred when CAHN midfielder Nguyen Quang Hai fell inside the box after contact with center-back Bui Hoang Viet Anh. Referee Nguyen Manh Hai did not blow his whistle, and the VAR team did not intervene. Thousands of spectators at Hang Day Stadium and millions of TV viewers had mixed reactions. However, looking at the laws of football and data from similar situations, the story is not as simple as momentary emotions.

To understand the issue, we must place the incident in the tactical context of the match. Hanoi FC applied high pressing from the start, while CAHN played counter-attacking football. In the 78th minute, Quang Hai received the ball in the central area, turned, and dribbled into the box. He performed a leftward dribble, his foot contacting Viet Anh's as the defender slid in to clear the ball. Quang Hai fell, but the ball went out. Referee Manh Hai, standing eight meters away, signaled to continue. According to statistics from VuaBong.vn, in the last five encounters between the two sides, referees have awarded three penalties, all to the home team. But that number means nothing without analyzing each specific situation.

Technical analysis from multiple camera angles reveals the key point: Viet Anh's standing foot touched the ball before the contact with Quang Hai. The front-angle camera behind the goal shows Viet Anh extending his left foot, touching the lower part of the ball, causing it to change direction. Only 0.2 seconds later did his leg entangle with Quang Hai's. According to IFAB Law 12, a foul is only recognized when a player acts carelessly, recklessly, or with excessive force. If the defender touches the ball first, subsequent contact is generally considered a legitimate challenge, unless his action endangers the opponent. In this case, Viet Anh did not raise his leg high, did not use his elbow, and the ball contact was clear. This is a “ball-touches-player, player-touches-player” situation – a fine line that an experienced referee would recognize instantly.

I have followed over 200 V-League matches in the past five years, and I have noticed a trend: Vietnamese referees tend to award penalties when an attacking player falls in the box even with light contact, especially in high-pressure media matches. My first mistake as a rookie was assuming every fall in the box was a penalty. But after reviewing the footage of the 2026 U23 Vietnam vs. U23 Indonesia match – where I mispronounced Quang Hai's name – I learned that: “Data only stays silent until you ask the right question.” The right question here is: “Did the defender touch the ball first?” The answer, based on three different camera angles, is yes.

Contrarian perspective: crowd emotions and the rules often conflict, but not always. Many CAHN fans believe the referee missed a clear penalty, and they have reason to be angry. However, looking at historical data, the rate of similar incidents being awarded as penalties in this V-League season is only 12% (according to VangBong.vn statistics). That means referee Manh Hai acted according to common practice, not a unique mistake. The crowd often looks at the result (player falling) while ignoring the process (ball touched first). Referees do not create fouls; they only record what the rules already have. If the law allows contact after touching the ball, then there is no foul here.

Takeaway: VAR's silence in this situation is an important signal about how the technology operates in V-League. VAR did not intervene because the video assistant referee team determined there was no clear and obvious error. This aligns with FIFA's “minimal intervention” principle. But the question arises: should V-League adjust VAR intervention criteria to catch borderline situations? I think not. Expanding VAR's scope would disrupt match rhythm and create instability. Instead, improve referees' judgment skills through real-scenario training. The first mistake is not to forget, but to use as a benchmark. Look back at this incident five years from now, when technology and rules have evolved, and we will know how far we have come.