Serie A’s Technology Failure Exposed a Bigger Problem Than VAR

A four-minute wait can be defended as caution. What Serie A cannot easily defend is what came after it: a decisive ruling built on a backup process that left the affected club unconvinced and the public asking who, exactly, was in charge. The overturned Pongracic equalizer was not just a technology failure. It was a governance failure waiting to be exposed.

In Fiorentina’s match against Como, Marin Pongracic appeared to score a late equalizer, but the goal was eventually disallowed for offside after several minutes of checks. The Lega Serie A later acknowledged that the advanced offside technology had not worked and that officials had used a manual grid, the fallback method permitted by FIFA rules. ANSA reported that Fiorentina remained dissatisfied and planned to take the matter to the FIGC.

That sequence matters because modern officiating sells more than accuracy. It sells an institutional promise: the decision is being reached through a controlled, repeatable process. Once the technology failed, Serie A needed to demonstrate that the process remained controlled. Instead, the public saw delay, uncertainty and a club demanding a fuller explanation.

A backup is not enough unless everyone trusts the backup

The strongest defense of the decision is also the simplest one: technology can fail, and the laws of the game already contemplate manual intervention. Goal.com reported that officials spent well over five minutes checking the incident because the VAR team could not establish the answer with the semi-automated system, then resorted to manually drawn offside lines.

That may be legally sufficient. It is not automatically persuasive.

The distinction is crucial. A fallback procedure can be valid without being credible. Credibility depends on whether clubs, referees and supporters understand when it is triggered, what evidence it requires, who verifies it and how the final decision is communicated. In this case, the visible delay made the manual method look less like a designed contingency and more like an emergency improvisation.

We should be careful not to pretend that a long check proves the final call was wrong. The available documentation does not establish that. But it does establish something almost as important: the technology failed, the manual system was used, and Fiorentina did not consider the explanation adequate. That gap between procedural compliance and institutional confidence is where governance problems grow.

Serie A has expanded technology faster than it has explained authority

The timing makes the episode even more revealing. Serie A entered the 2026-27 season with an expanded refereeing framework. VAR can intervene over clearly incorrect corner decisions before play restarts and can review a mistaken second yellow card. The league also introduced stricter limits for substitutions, throw-ins, goal kicks and players returning after treatment.

These changes point in opposite directions. On one hand, Serie A wants more accurate intervention where a mistake can alter a match. On the other, it wants fewer interruptions and greater authority for the referee on the field. La Gazzetta dello Sport reported that average effective playing time had risen to 59'14'', compared with 54'20'' the previous season, while the new approach emphasized fewer VAR interruptions.

That is a reasonable ambition. But the more responsibilities assigned to technology, the more explicit the hierarchy must become when technology is unavailable. Does the on-field referee regain full authority? Does the VAR team continue with a manual reconstruction? Is there a separate technical supervisor? Does the league publish the relevant footage and communication afterward?

The Pongracic incident exposed no convincing public answer to those questions. A competition cannot demand that fans accept technology as the final arbiter and then switch silently to a different standard when the system breaks.

Transparency cannot stop at “the procedure was followed”

The Lega’s response reportedly referred to the images supplied by VAR and acknowledged both the malfunction and the use of the manual grid. Fiorentina also requested the VAR conversations; the league said that request would be passed to the Federal Prosecutor because the recordings belong to the FIGC.

That chain of ownership may explain why the conversations were not immediately released. It does not resolve the transparency issue. In a high-stakes sporting decision, the public needs more than a statement that the correct procedure was followed. It needs an intelligible account of the procedure itself.

This is particularly important because the season’s wider reforms rely on public acceptance. A five-second countdown or a ten-second substitution limit is easy to understand: the rule is visible, immediate and relatively simple to audit. An offside reconstruction after a failed automated system is different. It involves technical evidence that most viewers cannot independently assess. That makes explanation, not just enforcement, part of the rule.

Serie A should publish a clear failure protocol before the next controversy arrives. It should define the trigger for abandoning the automated system, identify who has final authority, preserve the relevant footage and make the communication available through the appropriate federation process. It should also explain how clubs are briefed when the backup method is used. The league already holds preseason meetings to explain refereeing guidelines; a technology-failure protocol belongs in that same education effort.

The real winner should be a rulebook that survives failure

There is a temptation to frame this as Fiorentina versus the referee, or as another argument for or against VAR. That framing is too small. The real question is whether Serie A has built an officiating system that remains legitimate when its most advanced tool stops working.

In our view, the league has not yet made that case. The use of a manual grid may have been permitted, and the offside decision may ultimately have been correct. Neither point answers the governance question created by the four-minute wait and the unresolved demand for fuller evidence.

Technology should reduce uncertainty, not relocate it from the pitch to the control room. Serie A has invested in faster play and broader video authority; now it must invest in the rules for failure. Until clubs and supporters know exactly who decides, what evidence counts and how the explanation will be delivered, every malfunction will look like an improvised exception. That is not precision. It is authority asking to be trusted without showing its work.