From Tan Sinh's Off-the-Ball Kick to VPF's Meeting: V-League Discipline Under Test

On September 20, at Dong Nai's stadium, Nguyen Dinh Bac was on the ground. Moments earlier, Huynh Tan Sinh had twice kicked him from behind. Referee Le Vu Linh showed a yellow card. The red card stayed in his pocket. In that same match, Le Van Son threw an elbow at Dinh Bac, another incident that was not fully addressed. I rewatched the footage of that match several times. Not to hunt for more mistakes, but to understand why such a clear situation passed through V-League's monitoring system without a proportionate consequence. When a league lets those moments slip by, what erodes is not one team's points, but the trust of everyone else. V-League 2026-2027 has only played two rounds, yet it has already recorded a chain of incidents raising fears of on-field violence returning. In round 2, center-back Doan Van Hau (CAHN) broke the leg of midfielder Doan Ngoc Tan (The Cong Viettel). In the same round, foreign player Ezequiel Santos Da Silva (Nam Dinh) stamped on the stomach of Vo Huu Viet Hoang (SHB Da Nang). On September 20, when Dong Nai hosted CAHN, two new incidents appeared: Le Van Son elbowed Nguyen Dinh Bac, and Huynh Tan Sinh repeatedly kicked from behind at Dinh Bac himself. Facing the risk of damaging the league's image, representatives of the organizing committee, the Vietnam Professional Football Joint Stock Company (VPF), and the Vietnam Football Federation (VFF) met directly with the VFF Referee Board. The meeting centered on demanding that referees apply the law correctly, uphold the league's discipline, and prevent violent conduct on the pitch. The phrase "apply the law correctly" sounds simple, but here it carries something more specific: no missed fouls, no missed cards. And that is precisely the point referee Le Vu Linh is said to have missed in the Dong Nai versus CAHN match. In the situation where Huynh Tan Sinh "played the man instead of the ball" against Dinh Bac, referee Le Vu Linh only issued a yellow card. He did not use a red, even though Tan Sinh kicked Dinh Bac twice. This is the most important detail of the whole story, because it raises a question about process, not merely about a single decision. Under current rules, clearly playing the man instead of the ball is a serious offense, sufficient grounds for a direct red card. Kicking the same player twice, from behind, further increases the danger and intent of the play. When a referee stands very close to the incident and still only shows yellow, the problem is no longer about viewpoint. It is about the standard of enforcement. Former VFF Vice President for professional affairs and former head of the VFF Referee Board, Duong Vu Lam, told Dan Tri reporters after the match: "Referee Le Vu Linh missed a card on this play. Huynh Tan Sinh played the man far too blatantly, but did not receive a red card." Lam pushed the issue further: if the player is to be suspended retroactively for this foul, then referee Le Vu Linh should face the same suspension. He also demanded clarity on the VAR team's responsibility. According to him, if the VAR team, including Mr. Vo Hoai Thuong and Mr. Nguyen Thanh Son, advised the main referee but was overruled by him, then the VAR team did its job. Conversely, if the VAR team did not advise referee Le Vu Linh that a red card should be used for the foul mentioned, the VAR officials must also be sanctioned. This is the key point many overlook. VAR in V-League is often described as a tool to correct errors. But a tool only has value when the process runs correctly and when those operating it dare to speak up. If VAR saw the incident, judged its severity correctly, asked the main referee to review it, and was rejected, the problem lies with the main referee. If VAR stayed silent, the problem lies with an entire system. These two scenarios lead to two very different responses, and so far, the public still does not know which one occurred. From my experience watching matches across many leagues, I have noticed a fairly common pattern: when a main referee tends to manage a match with yellow cards to keep the flow, serious fouls are easily "downgraded" to ordinary ones. Players sense that threshold quickly. Once they understand that an off-the-ball kick only costs a yellow, they will weigh the risk in their favor. Conversely, a situation handled correctly on the spot has a stronger deterrent effect than any retroactive punishment issued days later. Typically, specific disciplinary decisions against referees are not widely announced. Duong Vu Lam offered one way to observe: "Just watch the referee list for the next rounds and you will know whether those referees have been suspended. If they are not assigned in the rounds immediately following the round just played, chances are they are being disciplined." That remark reflects a reality: transparency in handling referees in V-League remains a dark zone. Fans can see whether a red card was shown, but they rarely know why a referee is absent the following round. That silence may stem from the need to protect referees personally, but it also creates room for speculation. I once wrote before I listened. Now, I listen to the gaps between answers too. And in this story, the biggest gap lies in the meeting itself between VPF, VFF, the organizing committee, and the VFF Referee Board. The meeting took place, the demands were made, but the mechanism to turn demands into concrete action has not been clearly stated. Another angle on this story: focusing all attention on referees may once again be a way for other parties to dodge responsibility. A league's discipline is not built by the whistle alone. It is built by clubs managing their own players, by coaching staffs setting conduct standards in the dressing room, and by teams accepting that a player who kicks off the ball will be handled internally before the referee has to act. When Dong Nai let two of its players commit violent acts in the same match, the question worth asking is not only how the referee handled it, but also what the club did beforehand. Moreover, part of the cause of on-field violence lies in the pressure to achieve results. When a team must fight for survival or for a financially valuable position, pressure flows from the board to the coach, then to the players. Young players like Dinh Bac often receive most of the rough challenges, simply because they are faster, more skillful, and hard to stop legally. In closed meetings, people talk about price. In the hallway, they talk about the fear of being left behind. That fear sometimes becomes a kick from behind. The transfer market runs on the trust of those who listen, and so does the pitch. Vietnamese fans can accept a referee erring in a difficult situation. What they cannot accept is the feeling that the error carries no consequence, that a player kicked twice in the legs still only sees a yellow card, and that those responsible for protecting them answer to no one. What V-League needs now is not another formal meeting. What it needs is a transparent mechanism, where decisions and disciplinary rulings involving referees are disclosed at an appropriate level, where the VAR team is specifically accountable for each incident, and where clubs must pay a price when their players cross the line. The first lesson does not come from a contract, but from a rumor no one has confirmed. For Vietnamese football, the lesson on discipline is coming from a red card that was never shown. The next round will answer more questions than any press release. The list of assigned referees will say what the meetings do not.