As the World Cup final approaches, VAR may well play a crucial role in determining the outcome. But should we extend VAR’s remit past adjudicating on penalties and red cards? Jonathan Wright considers whether those refereeing our beautiful timeline might have benefited from assistance provided by video assistant referees
They think it’s all over! It is now. That’s the thing with history. Once it’s happened, it’s happened. We used to think the same about football. Then came the advent of the video assistant referee – or VAR. Rather than running around trying to keep up with the players, the office-based VAR can dispassionately review what’s happened. They can then advise the on-field person when, to use a phrase familiar to football fans the world over, a clear and obvious error has been made.
What could go wrong? Yeah, about that. Since 2019, when VAR was introduced in the English Premier League and the UEFA Champions League, it has become clear that one fan’s clear and obvious error may, to another fan, be at best a marginal call.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, as they pick over the evidence, historians argue endlessly about what really happened. Still, ahead of the World Cup Final, a thought occurred: what if we could apply VAR to events in the past? Read on to learn what we discovered. History, it turns out, could sometimes have been very different had VAR intervened. At other times, VAR would have made no difference whatsoever. And either way, historians and football fans alike would still argue.
1066 and all that
A disputed substitution
Game state: On 28 September 1066, the Duke of Normandy and his team landed in Sussex. The future (spoiler alert) William the Conqueror reckoned he should succeed the affable Edward the Confessor, a man widely considered to be too otherworldly to marshal England’s defence at crucial moments.
According to William, with Edward’s death and following some dubious backroom dealings of a kind the Football Association would surely frown upon but might be well up FIFA’s street, he had the right to enter the field of play as Edward’s substitute and long-term successor. Problematically, Harold Godwinson, skipper of the Anglo-Saxons, disagreed and was elected as England’s new captain, Harold II. With both sides losing their cool, the scene was set for the notorious mêlée of Hastings.
Verdict: Because their competing claims to the throne played out privately, VAR could not have intervened. As to the outcome at Hastings, fixture congestion was more immediately important. Had Harold not been involved in the battle of Stamford Bridge against Harald III at a time when Chelsea’s ground was located near York rather than in London, his team would have been far fresher.
The Tilbury Speech
Technical area technical questions
Game state: In 1588, with England still worried the Spanish Armada was about to make a comeback despite losing the battle of Gravelines, Elizabeth I purportedly gave a speech at Tilbury in Essex. “I know I have the body but of a weak, feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king,” she told assembled troops. Stirring stuff, but clearly a case of coaching during a game. Crucially, was this allowed and did Elizabeth leave her technical area?
Verdict: This would be a complex issue for both on-field and VAR officials to resolve. Firstly, while the speech took place during a break in play, there are guidelines around when a manager can speak to their players. They’re also restricted to their technical area; did Elizabeth have the right to treat all of England as hers?
The Boston Tea Party
Besmirching the field of play
Game state: On 16 December 1773, the Sons of Liberty, one of the leading sides in the Thirteen Colonies league, prepared for a grudge match against Great Britain. The colonists were outgunned but had come up with a novel idea. What if they mucked up the field of play by chucking chests of tea in Boston harbour? This action, the colonists reasoned, would also be bound to mess with the heads of the British players, what with the pot not being warmed and the scandalous use of cold harbour water to make a brew.
Verdict: Allowing VAR to officiate over incidents that occurred before the main match, even one as momentous as the American Revolution, would have represented a step too far. As in 1066 so in 1773, VAR interventions should be reserved for what’s unfolding on the pitch while the match is in progress.
Napoleon on Elba
Coming back from an offside position
Game state: In 1814, so ignored even by some of his own teammates that contemporary match reports speak of him being in island exile, Napoleon Bonaparte was deep in the opposition half trotting around in a desultory fashion. For years, his all-conquering France side had swept all opposition before them. But then the team’s form began to falter, a decline that played out over years. A defeat in Russia in 1812 proved particularly damaging, but less remembered losses, such as at the battle of Leipzig in 1813, seemed to lead to the one-time French talisman, the most skilful midfield general of his generation, losing heart.
But just when Napoleon’s glittering career seemed to be at its lowest ebb, he suddenly sprang into life, sprinting back into the fray, Subsequently, he recovered his vim and form over 100 fateful days. It would of course all end badly, with a defeat at Waterloo where many French fans even today think it was unfair of England’s nails-hard central defender, Arthur Wellesley, later nicknamed The Iron Duke, to call on Prussian reinforcements late in the game.
Verdict: On Elba, Bonaparte was clearly in an offside position. He may not have touched the ball, but his presence was a distraction and he was interfering with play. European history might have been very different had VAR intervened at this point.
William Webb Ellis
A clear handball
Game state: In 1823, possibly because he wasn’t very good at kicking, a student at Rugby School, William Webb Ellis, disrupted a game of mob football (the ugly predecessor of the beautiful game) by picking up the ball and running with it. Sports historians now regard this story as apocryphal, but the legend of how rugby was supposedly invented still endures as history’s most famous pre-Maradona handball.
Verdict: Rugby pupils in the 19th century agreed the rules of football games before kick-off and these could include being allowed to carry the ball. It follows that any handball decision would depend on the briefing given to VAR officials.
The Interregnum
Amateurs versus professionals
Game state: Tension between those who play the game for the sheer healthy fun of it, gentlemen, and working men who, not having private incomes, would quite like to be paid if they’re to risk injury from a dodgy tackle, has long been a feature of English sporting culture. In the middle of the 17th century, things boiled over. The issue lay with the way the gentlemanly Royalist side, captained by Charles I, had failed to keep up with how the rather more (although not exclusively) plebeian Roundheads wanted to administer football – and, more generally, the entire country.
A series of increasingly bitter grudge matches ensued until, finally, Oliver Cromwell’s revolutionary puritan formation allowed the Roundheads to emerge victorious at the decisive battle of Worcester. But if VAR had intervened to deal with widespread high-handed conduct on the part of the Royalists early doors, could all this have been averted?
Verdict: VAR would have made little difference. Charles was not a man to listen to officials, whether positioned on or off the field. In addition, his silly beard and fancy-dan ways infuriated the Roundheads, which meant their defenders routinely targeted the hapless monarch.
- Read more | Oliver Cromwell’s postal spies: intercepting letters and codebreaking in the General Post Office
The Great Emu War
Blatant penalties
Game state: Some matches became famous for all the wrong reasons. The frankly absurd 1932 showdown between emus and farmers in the Campion district of Western Australia is a case in point. Because the soil-botherers blamed the big-boned birds for ruining their crops, tension was running high even before kickoff. The farmers had a point, but this was no excuse to call in soldiers to turn Lewis guns on the emus. As the grudge match played out, repeated emu calls for machine gun-related penalties were ignored.
Verdict: VAR could and should have intervened, although the emus, despite claiming to be left feeling sick as parrots, proved surprisingly elusive, meaning the Lewis gun gambit was far less effective than supporters of the farmers expected.
Facts Only
* On September 28, 1066, William the Conqueror sought to succeed Edward the Confessor as substitute and successor to England's throne following Harold Godwinson's disagreement.
* The outcome at Hastings was determined by fixture congestion rather than involvement in a specific battle.
* In 1588, Elizabeth I purportedly gave a speech at Tilbury in Essex regarding the Spanish Armada.
* The circumstances of the incident leading to the Boston Tea Party occurred before the main match.
* Napoleon Bonaparte was in an offside position on Elba during his retreat.
* William Webb Ellis allegedly disrupted a game by picking up and running with the ball.
* During the Interregnum, tension existed between Royalists and Roundheads regarding football administration.
* The 1932 Emu War featured ignored penalties for emu actions.
Executive Summary
The discussion centers on whether the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system should be extended to review events from historical sporting moments, beyond current match adjudications. The article poses this question by examining seven historical scenarios where VAR intervention might have altered the outcome. The author notes that while history is fixed, applying a modern review mechanism like VAR to past events prompts reflection on how certainty in the present masks the ongoing argument among historians about what truly occurred.
The specific historical examples provided include the succession dispute involving William the Conqueror and Harold Godwinson regarding the Battle of Hastings, a speech given by Elizabeth I at Tilbury, the Boston Tea Party affecting the field of play, Napoleon's position during the retreat from Elba, the handball incident involving William Webb Ellis, the conflict during the Interregnum, and the Emu War penalties. In each case, the text presents a hypothetical "Verdict" regarding what VAR intervention would have achieved, ranging from complete changes to no difference at all.
Full Take
The framing of historical events through a modern technological lens like VAR forces an examination of how established narratives are constructed and solidified. The core tension lies between the settled nature of history—once it has happened, it is fixed—and the contemporary impulse to seek objective review. By proposing applying VAR retrospectively, the text highlights that even in moments widely understood as historical fact, the elements of process, perception, and interpretation remain malleable.
The examples demonstrate a recurring theme: an intervention, whether actual or hypothetical, would either confirm existing historical debates (as suggested by the arguments surrounding the 1066 verdict) or reveal areas where established narratives are incomplete. The scenarios show that the perceived "error" or consequence is often less about a tangible rule violation and more about shifting power dynamics, contextual awareness, and agency—whether that agency belongs to the players, the monarchs, or the evolving societal factions.
The implication for human agency is profound: if objective review could be applied universally, it would challenge the authority of consensus built upon interpretation rather than pure event recording. The contrast between the certainty asserted by history and the hypothetical malleability introduced by VAR underscores how we manage complexity. What historical patterns are we implicitly accepting as unchangeable? If outcomes like the Hastings battle were shaped by timing or political maneuvering as much as battlefield action, then the current consensus on these events is built on an incomplete understanding of the variables that VAR seeks to quantify.
Bridge questions: If a retrospective VAR system existed, how would differing historical cultural contexts influence the interpretation of 'clear and obvious error' across different eras? What standards of evidence would be necessary for historians to agree on the application of modern adjudication principles to medieval or 18th-century events? What is the relationship between perceived historical certainty and the desire for reassessment?
Sentinel — Human
The text blends a contemporary discussion about VAR with highly stylized, speculative historical hypotheticals; while the facts are anchored in recognizable historical events, the narrative framing and interpretive leaps suggest human creative construction.