ABSTRACT
The introduction of video assistant refereeing (VAR) into football has been met with some resistance. The objections touch on some of the negative impacts in the course of a football match. However, there are strong arguments, founded on the idea of justice in football, that support its use, since it contributes to reducing factors that diminish the importance of merit in the sport. But the main point analysed here has been the epistemic limits of VAR that make it impossible to resolve not only all the refereeing errors that may occur on the field of play, but especially the four situations in which it may intervene to review the refereeing decisions. In this context the paper analyses three problems: a) technical problems; b) arbitrariness and manipulations which may occur from those inside the VOR (video operation room); and c) the epistemic limits. Furthermore, VAR uses standards of evidence/revision depending on whether the situation reviewed is a factual problem (knowledge problem) or a problem of interpreting the wording of applicable rules (recognition problem). The varying nature of the VAR review explains the different degrees of deference that VAR receives from the referee in a particular situation. This is explained by the fact that in factual matters, VAR has an epistemic advantage over the on-pitch referee.
