Why do some fouls seem “ambiguous” even in slow motion?
Prof. Dr. Niels van Quaquebeke: Because in moments like these, our brain has to solve a problem for which it doesn’t have enough information: the scene is brief, the perspective limited. When something is ambiguous, we automatically resort to quick rules of thumb—we unconsciously simplify the situation.
This isn’t a sign of a lack of intelligence, but a normal mechanism under time pressure. Especially in soccer, many impressions come into play: Who appears physically superior? Who has more speed? Who occupies the space more “dominantly”? From these puzzle pieces, a plausible interpretation emerges in our minds.
And because different people perceive different details as decisive, the same scene can be evaluated differently—that is why controversial challenges are such a reliable source of debate.
In a study (2010), you examined the question of whether height plays a role. What is the basic idea—and what should World Cup viewers take away from this?
Prof. Dr. Niels van Quaquebeke: The basic idea is simple: Many people automatically associate “taller” with strength and assertiveness. It’s a very obvious association—we often use it in everyday life without even realizing it.
My colleague Steffen R. Giessner and I asked ourselves at the time: Could this psychological mechanism also play a role in soccer when a tackle is ambiguous? Our data from professional competitions, as well as our experiments, revealed a pattern: In ambiguous situations, a foul was attributed slightly more often to the taller player. In addition, our analyses showed that the greater the size difference between the two players involved, the more likely the foul was attributed to the larger player.
It’s important to note the context here: The study is from 2010 and uses data from earlier years—this is not a statement about exactly how referees will call fouls at the 2026 World Cup. What remains timelessly relevant, however, is this: In fast-paced, ambiguous scenes, unconscious impressions can come into play.
For viewers, this means: If you’re certain about a scene, it’s sometimes worth taking a second look: “Am I being guided by the impression that ‘powerful = more likely at fault’?” This reflection alone makes the debate fairer.
Today we have the VAR (Video Assistant Referee). Does technology solve such problems—or do perceptual pitfalls persist nonetheless?
Prof. Dr. Niels van Quaquebeke: VAR makes a big difference because it provides additional camera angles and time for review. That can help correct clear mistakes.
At the same time, we shouldn’t expect technology to resolve every controversy. First, our study does not examine VAR—it dates from a time before today’s VAR practices. Second, even with video evidence, questions remain in soccer that aren’t purely technical: How intense was the contact? Was it a normal brace or a shove? Was the foot “really” too late? Many situations involve an element of interpretation.
From a psychological perspective, not much changes at all: even with video evidence, people look at a scene and have to interpret it. Technology can improve the information available—but it does not completely replace human judgment. So for the World Cup, the rule is: debating whether something was a foul is simply part of the game.
Prof. Dr. Niels van Quaquebeke is a psychologist and professor of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at Kühne Logistics University (KLU) in Hamburg, as well as a Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Exeter. His research focuses on leadership, collaboration, and communication—and on how artificial intelligence is transforming organizations.
