Hubbry Logo
Video assistant refereeVideo assistant refereeMain
Open search
Video assistant referee
Community hub
Video assistant referee
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Video assistant referee
Video assistant referee
Video assistant referee
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

VAR monitor at the Estadio Monumental David Arellano in Santiago, Chile
The VAR symbol used at the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups, appearing on-screen during the review process

The video assistant referee (VAR) is a match official in association football who assists the referee by reviewing decisions using video footage and providing advice to the referee based on those reviews.[1]

The assistant video assistant referee (AVAR) is a match official appointed to assist the VAR in the video operation room and around the pitch. There are three AVARs (AVAR1, AVAR2, sometimes called the support video assistant referee, and AVAR3) who are assigned to different parts of the game that they are charged with reviewing and are in consistent communication with the VAR about possible situations that might warrant further review. The job of the AVAR1 is to watch the main camera and communicate some of the more obvious offenses within the game. The AVAR2 is located at the offside station and is responsible for assisting the VAR with offsides and reporting possible missed offside calls. The AVAR3 is responsible for monitoring the TV programs and assists in communication between the AVAR2 and the VAR since the AVAR2 is at the offside station.[2]

In addition to the VAR and the AVARs there are three replay operators who help the VAR and AVARs select the cameras with the best angle.[2]

Following extensive trialling in a number of major competitions, VAR was formally written into the Laws of the Game by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) on March 3, 2018.[3] Operating under the philosophy of "minimal interference, maximum benefit",[4][5] the VAR system seeks to provide a way for "clear and obvious errors" and "serious missed incidents" to be corrected.

Procedure

[edit]

There are four categories of decisions that can be reviewed.[6]

  • Goal/no goal – attacking team commits an offence, ball out of play, ball entering goal, offside, handball, offences and encroachment during penalty kicks.
  • Penalty/no penalty – attacking team commits an offence, ball out of play, location of offence, incorrect awarding, offence not penalised.
  • Direct red card – denial of obvious goal-scoring opportunity, serious foul play, violent conduct/biting/spitting, using offensive/insulting/abusive language or gestures.
  • Mistaken identity in awarding a red or yellow card. The original decision given by the referee will not be changed unless the video review clearly shows that the decision was a ’clear and obvious error.’ The final decision is always taken by the referee, either based on information from the VAR or after the referee has undertaken an ‘on field review’ (OFR).

Check

[edit]
A VAR decision during an FA Cup match at the City of Manchester Stadium, Manchester.

The VAR and the AVARs automatically check every on-field referee decision falling under the four reviewable categories. The VAR may perform a "silent check," communicating to the referee that no mistake was made, while not causing any delay to the game. At other times, a VAR check may cause the game to be delayed while the VAR ascertains whether or not a possible mistake has occurred. The referee may delay the restart of play for this to occur, and indicates an ongoing check by pointing to their ear.

Where the VAR does identify a possible clear and obvious error, there are three possible scenarios:[7]

  • Decision overturned on advice of VAR
  • On-field review (OFR) recommended
  • Referee chooses to ignore VAR advice

A decision can generally be overturned without an OFR where it relates to a factual matter. For example, offside decisions or whether a foul occurred inside or outside the penalty area can be determined by the VAR to the referee without a review. VAR will recommend an OFR where there is a subjective decision to make, such as whether a foul was committed in the first place or whether a red card is warranted for a certain offence. In all cases, the final decision rests with the referee, and they can choose to ignore the advice of the VAR altogether.[8]

On-field review (OFR)

[edit]
A Major League Soccer referee reviewing a play using a sideline monitor

An OFR can only be conducted on the recommendation of the VAR. This ensures that the referee always makes an on-field ruling and does not rely on OFRs for every close decision. An OFR can be conducted when the ball is out of play, or where the referee stops play for the express purpose of conducting one.[6]

The referee signals an OFR by making the outline of a rectangle, indicating a video screen. The OFR takes place in a designated referee review area (RRA), adjacent to the field of play and in public view to ensure transparency. Slow motion replays are only used to establish point of contact for physical offences and handball, while full-speed replays are shown to determine the intensity of an offence or whether a handball occurred in the first place.[9] During an OFR, the VAR transmits several video replays from different camera angles to assist the referee in making a decision.

Once an OFR is completed, the referee makes the TV signal again, before indicating the decision made. If the ball was out of play, it restarts with either the original decision or the new decision if the on-field one was changed. If play was stopped to conduct an OFR and the decision was not changed, a dropped ball occurs.[10]

Offences

[edit]

A number of offences relating to the VAR process are codified within the Laws of the Game. Both players and team officials can be cautioned for excessively protesting an on-field decision by making the TV signal. Any player or team official entering the RRA are also cautioned. Finally, entering the video operation room will cause a player or team official to be sent off.[11]

Assistant video assistant referees in action during a Saudi Professional League match

Location

[edit]

The VAR and the AVARs are often located within the stadium where the match is being played. Certain leagues have begun using a centralized review location. For example, the English Premier League stations all its VAR teams in the video operation room (VOR) at Stockley Park in London and the German Football Association in Cologne-Deutz.[12] During its 2022 season, Major League Soccer in the United States created a Video Review Center in Atlanta where all its VAR teams operate.[13]

Camera setup

[edit]

The Var system consists of 42 cameras including slow and ultra slow motion cameras as well as the cameras used in offside technology, and all FIFA host broadcaster camera feeds to ensure the VAR has the best angle possible on every play.[2]

Glossary

[edit]

A number of technical terms and abbreviations are used in reference to the VAR system. These include:[14]

  • Check – Process by which the VAR automatically inspects all reviewable decisions.[15] A check can result in confirmation of the on-field decision (a "silent check"), a change in decision for factual matters (e.g. offside/not offside) or the recommendation of an OFR.
  • Clear and obvious error – Degree required for an on-field decision to be overturned.[16]
  • OFR – On-field review; review process that occurs following recommendation by the VAR. Used where a clear and obvious mistake may have been made in regards to a subjective decision.
  • RO – Replay operator; non-referee official who assists video officials by managing the broadcast and finding the best angles to allow for the right decision to be made
  • RRA – Referee review area; area where an OFR is conducted, located adjacent to the field of play and in sight at all times
  • VAR – Video Assistant Referee; main video official whose main role is to check all reviewable incidents and recommend an OFR where a possible clear and obvious error has occurred. The VAR is a current or former qualified referee.[6]
    • AVAR – Assistant VAR; official that assists the VAR by watching the live action on the field while the VAR is undertaking a "check" or a "review".[6]
      • Offside VAR – AVAR official that anticipates and checks any potential offside situations in game-changing situations.[17][18]
      • Support VAR – AVAR official that coordinates communication between VAR officials and focuses on the television programme feed.[17][18]
  • Video official – Category of match official, alongside on-field officials. Consists of VAR and any AVARs.
  • VOR – Video operation room; room where the VAR team is located. The VOR can be located in or near the stadium, or in a centralised location such as a broadcast centre.

History

[edit]
The moment when the referee decides to take a penalty kick as a result of VAR evaluation in the TFF First League.

VAR was conceived by the Refereeing 2.0 project in the early 2010s and under the direction of the Royal Netherlands Football Association (KNVB).[19] The system was tested through mock trials during the 2012–13 season of the Eredivisie, the country's top football league. In 2014, the KNVB petitioned the International Football Association Board (IFAB) to amend its laws of the games to allow the system to be used during more extensive trials. The IFAB approved trials and a pathway to full implementation during its 2016 general meeting.[19][20] Lukas Brud, IFAB secretary, said "With all the 4G and Wi-Fi in stadia today...we knew we had to protect referees from making mistakes that everyone can see immediately", such as Thierry Henry's handball that eliminated Ireland from qualifying for the 2010 FIFA World Cup where the on-field referees were not in a position to view the infraction.

Proposals to introduce any form of video review were consistently rejected by FIFA president Sepp Blatter. Throughout his presidency, Blatter was vehemently opposed to the introduction of any new technology to challenge the live decisions of referees in football, often even going to far as to intervene (or threaten to) in domestic competition matters where the only pertinent question was whether suspensions for questionable sendings off should be enforced. After Blatter was forced out of his post due to an unrelated corruption scandal in 2015, the VAR proposal received a warm reception under his successor Gianni Infantino.[19]

The first live trial of the VAR system was in July 2016 in a friendly match between PSV and FC Eindhoven.[21]

The next live trial of the VAR system began in August 2016 with a United Soccer League match between two Major League Soccer reserve sides.[22] Match referee Ismail Elfath reviewed two fouls during the match and, after consultation with video assistant referee Allen Chapman, decided to issue a red card and a yellow card in the respective incidents.[23]

Video reviews were introduced the following month during an international friendly between France and Italy.[24]

The first professional "non-friendly" game was an official first round KNVB Cup tie between Ajax and Willem II on 21 September 2016.[25] This match was the first match to include a "pitchside monitor". The pitchside monitor would allow the referee to review footage from the field. Based on VAR but not using the available pitchside monitor, a yellow card was turned into a red card and thus this was the first ever VAR based expulsion in a professional game.[26] Interestingly, this professional and official Cup game was played before the official FIFA rule changes. Although viewers watching the match on television were made aware of the decision, the public in the stadium and, to a lesser extent, the players were confused as to what had happened. The major lesson from the confusion around this first major decision change was that VAR decisions needed to be clearly communicated to the players, the watching public inside the stadium, and on TV.[26]

The next event that VAR was used, including a "pitchside monitor" was at the 2016 FIFA Club World Cup.[27] Kashima Antlers were awarded a penalty after a video review in the 3–0 win of semi-final against Atlético Nacional.

The A-League in Australia became the first to use a VAR system in a top-flight professional club competition on 7 April 2017, when Melbourne City played Adelaide United[28] though this game was completed without the VAR being called upon.[29] The first intervention by a VAR in a professional national league game was seen on 8 April when Wellington Phoenix hosted Sydney FC. The VAR identified an illegal handball in the penalty area and awarded Sydney FC a penalty. The game finished in a 1–1 draw.[30][31]

Major League Soccer in the United States introduced VAR in competitive matches during its 2017 season after the 2017 MLS All-Star Game on 2 August 2017.[32][33] Its first official use came during a match between the Philadelphia Union and FC Dallas, invalidating a goal from the latter over contact made between a Dallas player and Philadelphia's goalkeeper.[34] VAR was used at an international level in the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup in June, where it was praised, but its usefulness was questioned after a referee decision in the final match.[35][36]

Also in 2017, Portuguese Football Federation (FPF) had its first official match using VAR, during Portuguese Cup Final between SL Benfica and Vitoria SC at Jamor Stadium on the 28 May 2017. Portuguese Football Federation was the first country in the world to use VAR in a Women's competition: one week after men's Cup final, in the same stadium, VAR was officially used in a Women's match between Sporting CP and SC Braga.

After the 2016 introduction in cup football in Europe, the VAR system was introduced in top-flight European football league competitions by Bundesliga and the Serie A at the beginning of the 2017–18 season[37] and by La Liga at the beginning of the 2018–19 season.[38] The system was also used at the 2017 FIFA U-20 World Cup in October.[39] On 8 January 2018, VAR was trialled for the first time in England in the 2017–18 FA Cup game between Brighton & Hove Albion and Crystal Palace,[40] and the following day it was trialled for the first time in France in the Côte d'Azur derby game in the 2017–18 French League Cup. It was said to have worked well.[41]

Italy opened the world's first VAR training centre in Coverciano in January 2018.[42]

The VAR system that is currently used was created by Hawk-Eye Innovations Limited and was tested according to FIFA's Quality Programme by a third party[2] On 3 March 2018, the IFAB wrote VAR into the Laws of the Game on an incorrect basis.[43] Its use remains optional for competitions, and the English Premier League and the UEFA Champions League were not expected to implement VAR for their 2018–19 season.[44] However Premier League executive chairman Richard Scudamore described it as "inevitable" that VAR will be introduced to the Premier League.[45] On 27 September 2018, UEFA announced that from the 2019–20 UEFA Champions League season, VAR will be used in the competition.[46] Although VAR was not implemented in the group stages of the 2018–19 season, UEFA announced on 3 December 2018, that VAR would be used in the knockout stages, which commenced in February 2019.[47]

On 15 November 2018, Premier League teams voted in principle to bring Video Assistant Referees to the Premier League from the 2019–20 season onwards pending approval of IFAB and FIFA; this came after a controversial decision from referee Simon Hooper to disallow a goal scored by Southampton F.C. striker Charlie Austin.[48]

On 1 January 2020, the Emperor's Cup Final was the first Japanese football match to use VAR. This was also a preparation for the introduction of VAR into Olympic football.

In 2023, it was announced that the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup for the first time the decision will be explained live in the stadium by the referee.[49] This was also later used in the 2024 A-League finals series and also used in the MLS.

Notable uses of VAR

[edit]

2018 FIFA World Cup

[edit]

FIFA officially approved the use of VAR for the 2018 FIFA World Cup during the FIFA Council meeting on 16 March 2018 in Bogotá.[50][44][51][52] This tournament became the first competition to use VAR in full (at all matches and in all venues).[53]

Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal being shown a yellow card after a challenge with an Iranian player that was reviewed by referee Enrique Cáceres as a potential red card incident

The 2018 World Cup marked the system's World Cup debut. A total of 335 incidents were checked by the VAR over the course of the group stage, averaging seven per match, and fourteen calls made by referees were changed or overruled after being reviewed by the VAR. According to FIFA, the VAR system had a success rate of 99.3 percent, up from the 95 percent of correct calls by referees without VAR.[54] The first VAR decision at the World Cup came on 16 June 2018 in a group stage match between France and Australia, where referee Andres Cunha awarded a penalty to France after consulting with the VAR.[55][56] In the final, referee Néstor Pitana used the VAR to review a defensive foul for handling in the penalty area, awarding France a penalty, which gave them a 2–1 lead over Croatia. The final eventually ended with France prevailing 4–2.[57]

The use of VAR has been credited with assisting the 2018 edition's status as the cleanest World Cup since 1986, after no red cards were issued in the opening 11 games and only four players were sent off in the entire tournament which was the fewest since 1978.[58] 22 goals were scored from 29 awarded penalty kicks, beating the previous record of 17 penalty kick goals set in the 1998 tournament; the dramatic increase in the number of penalties awarded at the 2018 World Cup has been attributed to VAR catching fouls which would otherwise have remained unpunished.[59] IFAB technical director and former Premier League referee David Elleray stated a belief that the presence of VAR meant that players would know that they would not be able to get away with anything under the new system.[60]

Criticism

[edit]

The use of video technology at the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup was criticised after several contentious moments involving VAR at the tournament. It was accused of "creating as much confusion as clarity".[61][62]

Further criticism was leveled at VAR after it suffered issues preventing its use, for example in a Portuguese match where a supporter's flag had been obscuring the VAR camera,[63][64] or in the 2018 A-League Grand Final between Newcastle Jets and Melbourne Victory where the VAR software suffered a technical malfunction which prevented the assistant referee from viewing the replay, allowing Melbourne Victory to wrongly score the only goal of the game and win the A-League Championship with it.[65][66]

After the introduction of VAR in the 2018 World Cup, FIFA deemed it a success. Nevertheless, the use (or lack of use) of VAR has been criticised.[67][68] Independent assessments note that while most decisions were made correctly as a result of VAR, some were wrong despite VAR review and some decisions which were called incorrectly were not even reviewed.[69][67] There have also been incidents when there has been miscommunication between VAR and the referee, such as Liverpool FC v Tottenham FC in September 2023 which ended up being a crucial mistake after VAR told the referee the wrong decision after they thought the on-field decision was the other way about.[70]The Guardian concludes that VAR has been most effective for factual decisions such as offsides and mistaken identities, while subjective decisions such as penalties or the disciplining of players have fared much worse. Lack of clarity and consistency are two main areas of weakness.[71] In addition, research from the University of Bath found that, on average, "participants thought the ball was kicked 132 miliseconds later than it actually was",[72] proving that the technology at present has issues with accuracy.

Another line of criticism has been targeted at the effectiveness of the system in achieving its goal. In the opinion of Scott Stinson from the National Post, VAR, like any other replay system, fails to correct human error and instead only adds to the controversies because human judgment is still necessary.[73] Human error has significant social causes as well, as a research study done in Italy found that players with darker skin complexion were "more likely to receive punishment for fouls" with all else held constant.[74] Such bias, including unconscious bias, may not be removed entirely by VAR, as it still relies on human judgment to make the final call.[73].Concerns also arise even with VAR's accuracy. In the 2018-19 Champions League quarterfinals, VAR ruled out a last-minute Manchester City goal against Tottenham due to Agüero’s marginal offside. While technically correct, it highlighted issues with delayed flagging and ultra-tight decisions, leaving City’s fans devastated.[75][76]

Lack of transparency is another contentious point, as teams have no way to know which incidents were reviewed by the VAR team.[77] At a press conference held after the group stage, FIFA referees committee chairman Pierluigi Collina showed footage of the decision-making process accompanied with audio of the conversations between VAR officials and the referees. Asked if this audio could be made publicly available, as it is in rugby and cricket, Collina answered affirmatively but cautioned that it might still be too early.[78][79] That said, in an attempt to provide more transparency to fans, sports broadcaster Sky Sports launched the controversial television programme "Match Officials Mic'd Up". Produced by the Premier League, the show aims to bring transparency and constructive discourse to the VAR process, with host Michael Owen and PGMOL Chief Howard Webb analysing VAR calls from previous game weeks.[80]

Others have pointed to the game-changing nature of VAR. There is an increase in the number and duration of pause in the game with VAR system.[81] Initial fears that using the system would lengthen the game considerably have not been confirmed, with every VAR review taking up an average of only 80 seconds.[82] The dramatic increase in the number of penalties awarded at the 2018 World Cup has been attributed to VAR catching fouls which would otherwise have remained unpunished. Of the 169 goals scored in the tournament, 22 were from penalty kicks (with 29 being awarded in total), beating the previous record of 17 set in the 1998 FIFA World Cup.[59] Jonathan Liew of The Independent compares the situation to the introduction of the Decision Review System in cricket and notes the changes it had on that sport, and suggests that it might lead to changes of a similar nature in football.[83]

VAR hasn't just affected the teams that are playing the game.[84] English Premier league fans said that VAR has made the game less enjoyable since the introduction of it and will attend fewer games because of this.[85] The increase in pauses during a game has also been a huge factor with the football fans, with a great number of fans saying that they would most likely support VAR if there was a time limit for the amount of time VAR takes when in use.[86]

Use of VAR has actually been shown to increase playing time in both the first and second half, while not significantly altering the amount of other variable, such as penalties, offsides, fouls, and goals except for a considerable decrease in the number of offsides in Men's football matches,[87] which could be contributed to video analysis being more reliable than human judgement in these scenarios.

In February 2019, UEFA issued guidance which stated that players who made a "TV-screen" hand gesture should result in a yellow card.[88] "Excessively using the 'review' (TV screen) signal" is now listed as a caution for which a player may receive a yellow card in the Laws of the Game.[89] Early uses of VAR in the Premier League, at the beginning of the 2019–20 season, were described as confusing to both coaches and fans with the decision making often inconsistent.[90] By 2022 the application of VAR in the Premier League was still subject to criticism. On 3 September 2022, games involving Chelsea, West Ham United, Newcastle United, Crystal Palace, Brentford and Leeds United all contained contentious VAR decisions.[91]

Premier League officials were criticized for taking lucrative jobs in the Middle East. In the match between Tottenham Hotspur and Liverpool on 30 September 2023, the VAR Darren England made a decision that led to the disallowance of a valid goal scored by Luis Diaz. England was alleged of losing focus because he had taken an eight-hour flight back from the United Arab Emirates along with Dan Cook, the assistant VAR. The situation further complicated when it was revealed that England and Cook had been in the UAE to supervise a Pro League game. They reportedly received a payment of £15-20k for this duty.[92]

In VAR matches the assistant referees who decide on offsides are required to avoid raising the flag for an offside decision until the play proceeds to a natural conclusion, unless the offside is extremely obvious.[93] This allows a team who might have been called for an offside offence to instead continue and score a goal to be checked by VAR. When play continues there is the chance of an injury occurring that might not before the introduction of VAR. Team-mates Rui Patricio and Conor Coady collided with each other in a game against Liverpool after a delayed offside call allowed play to continue and Fernando Muslera suffered a double leg break after a collision with opposition striker Milan Škoda following a delayed offside call in December 2021.[94]

The Premier League introduced semi-automated offside technology on 12 April 2025.[95] This technology removes the human error aspect of detecting when the ball has been kicked and placing the lines onto players and to pitch level, making it quicker and more accurate.[96]

Competitions using VAR

[edit]

Competitions which include VAR confirmed matches are "live" matches, i.e. where the VARs have contact with the referee on the field of play and therefore may have an impact on the decision making.[97]

There is also an idea of implementing VAR in futsal matches.[98]

Club competitions

[edit]

International

[edit]

Continental

[edit]
VAR in use in the UEFA Champions League group stage in 2019 by Cüneyt Çakır

Regional

[edit]

Domestic leagues

[edit]

Domestic cups

[edit]

National team competitions

[edit]

International

[edit]
VAR in use at the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup in France.

Continental

[edit]

Regional

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Video assistant referee

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Video assistant referee (VAR) is a match official protocol in whereby a video assistant referee, supported by assistant video assistant referees, reviews video footage to assist the on-field solely for clear and obvious errors or serious missed incidents in four key areas: goals and whether they should be awarded or disallowed, penalty decisions, direct red card events, and cases of mistaken identity. The system, formalized by the (IFAB) in 2018 laws of the game, limits interventions to maintain referee while aiming to enhance decision accuracy through technological review. First trialed in non-competitive and lower-stakes matches around 2012-2016, VAR entered competitive use in leagues such as the Dutch Eredivisie and Australian A-League before its high-profile debut at the , where it overturned decisions in notable instances like a disallowed goal in the versus Australia opener. Empirical analyses indicate VAR has empirically raised refereeing accuracy rates from pre-implementation baselines of 82-92% to 96-98% across major competitions, reducing critical errors in reviewed incidents. Despite these gains, VAR has sparked persistent controversies over its causal effects on game dynamics, including extended stoppages averaging additional minutes per match, heightened issuance of disciplinary cards post-intervention, and debates on whether "clear and obvious" thresholds introduce new subjective biases that undermine real-time flow and fan engagement. Ongoing refinements, such as semi-automated offside technology integrations, seek to mitigate delays, though data reveals mixed outcomes on overall match performance variables like possession and shots.

Definition and Principles

Core Concept and Role

The Video Assistant Referee (VAR) serves as an off-field match official equipped with access to multiple camera angles and video replays to support the on-field 's decision-making in . This system, governed by protocols established by the (IFAB), limits intervention to rectifying clear and obvious errors or addressing serious missed incidents within four defined reviewable categories: incidents involving goals (including preceding offences), penalties, direct red cards, and of players. The VAR team, typically comprising the VAR and two assistant VARs (AVARs), communicates potential issues to the referee via a private audio link, ensuring that only factual corrections—rather than subjective reinterpretations—are proposed. Central to the VAR's role is the principle of minimum interference, maximum benefit, which prioritizes preserving the game's natural flow while enhancing decision accuracy on high-stakes calls that could alter match outcomes. Interventions occur only after the referee's initial on-field decision, with the VAR prompted to review footage if a reviewable error is suspected; however, the referee retains ultimate authority, either accepting the VAR's recommendation or conducting an on-field review (OFR) by viewing the replay on a pitchside monitor. This structure aims to mitigate in real-time officiating, where unaided perception limits—such as obscured views or rapid action—can lead to inaccuracies, without supplanting the 's judgment on matters like subjective fouls outside the protocol's scope. Empirical evaluations of VAR implementation, including trials preceding its debut, indicate it reduces critical errors in targeted incidents by up to 95% in controlled settings, though its effectiveness depends on consistent application of the "clear and obvious" threshold to avoid over-correction. The system's design reflects a causal focus on verifiable evidence from synchronized footage, countering optical illusions or positional biases inherent in live observation, yet it does not extend to non-reviewable elements like indirect free kicks or yellow cards unless tied to the core categories.

Objectives and Decision-Making Protocols

The primary objective of the video assistant (VAR) system is to assist the on-field in correcting clear and obvious errors or identifying serious missed incidents within specific match-changing situations, thereby enhancing the accuracy of final decisions without supplanting the 's authority. This intervention is strictly limited to ensure that VAR supports rather than disrupts the game's flow, prioritizing factual verification over subjective reinterpretation of routine calls. Guiding principles include minimum interference, whereby VAR intervenes only when a clear and obvious error is evident, respecting the referee's initial on-field decision unless it demonstrably deviates from the Laws of the Game. Another core tenet is accuracy over speed, with no imposed time limits on reviews to allow thorough examination of footage, though prolonged delays are avoided to maintain game momentum. The referee retains ultimate decision-making authority, receiving recommendations from the VAR team but finalizing outcomes independently, often after an on-field review (OFR) at a pitchside monitor if deemed necessary. VAR reviews apply exclusively to four categories of incidents:
  • Goal/no goal decisions, including any offences or offside positions leading to the goal;
  • Penalty/no penalty decisions, encompassing related offences;
  • Direct red card incidents (excluding second yellow cards);
  • Mistaken identity, such as incorrectly cautioning or sending off the wrong player.
The decision-making protocol begins with an automatic, silent check by the VAR of all potentially reviewable incidents using multiple camera angles and replays. If a clear error or serious miss is identified, the VAR communicates factual observations—such as positioning or contact details—to the referee via a dedicated protocol, recommending a review without dictating the outcome. The referee then decides whether to maintain the original call, accept the VAR's input directly, or initiate an OFR, where they view selected footage in a designated review area while remaining visible to stadium audiences. The assistant VAR (AVAR) supports by cross-checking and may assist in communication, but post-review, the referee announces the final decision, potentially adjusting disciplinary sanctions if new evidence warrants it, provided play has not restarted. Reviews cannot be triggered by players or coaches, and certain decisions become non-reviewable once play resumes, except in cases of mistaken identity or specific serious fouls like violent conduct.

Technical Implementation

Review Procedures and Check Categories

The video assistant referee (VAR) system employs a structured protocol governed by the (IFAB), emphasizing minimum interference-maximum benefit to correct only clear and obvious errors or serious missed incidents without unduly disrupting . This principle requires the on-field to make an initial decision based on real-time observation, with VAR intervention limited to specific match-altering situations; the referee retains sole authority to initiate any review, accepting or rejecting VAR recommendations. Reviews prioritize accuracy over speed, with no fixed time limits, though play is stopped only when necessary in neutral zones to facilitate assessment. VAR conducts an automatic check—a preliminary inspection—of all incidents falling within defined categories using multiple camera angles and synchronized replays, remaining silent unless a potential error is identified. The four primary reviewable categories are:
  • Goal/no goal: Including preceding incidents such as fouls, offside positions, out of play, or encroachment by non-participating players.
  • Penalty/no penalty: Encompassing the location of offenses (inside/outside the ), , fouls, and movement or encroachment.
  • Direct red card: Covering violent conduct, serious foul play, or denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO), but excluding decisions based on a second yellow card.
  • Mistaken identity: Correcting sanctions applied to the wrong player, applicable to both red cards and cautions.
Upon detecting a potential issue during a check, the VAR communicates findings to the via headset, recommending an on-field review (OFR) for subjective judgments (e.g., foul severity) or a VAR-only review for factual determinations (e.g., offside positioning or offense location). In an OFR, the views footage at a designated pitchside monitor, often after verifying the attacking possession phase, and must publicly signal the review process to maintain transparency. VAR-only reviews allow the to overturn decisions remotely without monitor consultation if evidence is conclusive, ensuring the original call stands absent unequivocal proof of error. No reviews occur post-restart except for or certain sending-off offenses, and players or coaches cannot demand checks, with violations potentially incurring cautions.

Equipment, Camera Systems, and Operational Setup

The Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system employs two primary configurations certified by : full VAR setups, which support at least four cameras with no upper limit, and VAR Light systems, restricted to a maximum of eight cameras for cost-effective implementation in lower-tier or resource-limited environments. Full VAR requires dedicated positions for a replay operator (RO) to handle footage synchronization, whereas VAR Light relies on the VAR performing this function without a separate RO, necessitating additional training for operators. Camera systems utilize high-definition feeds from multiple angles around the pitch, integrated with broadcast signals for comprehensive coverage; slow-motion replay is mandatory for factual assessments like contact points, while normal speed suffices for evaluating subjective elements such as foul intensity. In high-profile events like the , setups expanded to 42 broadcast cameras, including eight super slow-motion and four ultra slow-motion units, supplemented by semi-automated offside technology feeds. Operational setup occurs in a secure Video Operation Room (VOR), typically located near or within the for full VAR or in a neutral site for VAR Light, housing the VAR, one or more assistant VARs (AVARs), and ROs as needed. The VAR maintains independent access to replay controls for footage, connected via the match officials' communication system, which uses button-activated audio links to the on-field to minimize disruptions. AVARs support by monitoring live play, offside positions, or field events; for example, in the 2022 World Cup VOR, AVAR1 tracked the main camera feed, AVAR2 handled offside checks via specialized stations, and AVAR3 coordinated replays with three ROs. Monitoring equipment includes upper screens for primary live feeds and quad-split displays for multi-angle incident reviews, ensuring the VAR team can isolate and analyze potential errors in goals, penalties, direct red cards, or mistaken identity without time constraints, prioritizing accuracy. For on-field reviews, the accesses a pitchside monitor displaying VAR-curated clips, with only authorized personnel permitted in the VOR to maintain integrity. FIFA's Quality Programme for VAR Technology, established in 2022, mandates for all systems, testing aspects like camera , replay latency, and integration with optional VOR cameras, with full compliance required by mid-2024 for VAR Light transitions. This framework ensures operational reliability across competitions, though implementation varies by organizer approval under IFAB protocols.

On-Field and Off-Field Review Processes

The video assistant referee (VAR) system employs distinct on-field and off-field processes to assist the in reviewing decisions, adhering to protocols established by the (IFAB). Off-field reviews occur in a video operation room (VOR), where the VAR team—comprising the VAR, assistant VARs (AVAR1 for offside analysis and AVAR2 for general support), and a replay operator—continuously monitors the match via multiple camera feeds. This team automatically conducts a "check" for all reviewable incidents, limited to four categories: /no , penalty/no penalty, direct red/yellow-red card, and . Using various angles and speeds (normal for assessing foul intensity, slow-motion for factual elements), the VAR identifies potential clear and obvious errors or serious missed incidents, then communicates findings to the on-field via headset only if intervention is warranted under the minimum interference principle. In off-field-only interventions, the referee may overturn a decision based solely on the VAR's verbal recommendation without viewing footage, typically for objective matters like offside positions or clear factual errors, ensuring the referee retains final authority. The VAR team avoids unnecessary interruptions, remaining silent if no error is evident, and prioritizes accuracy over speed, with no fixed time limits for checks. Communication follows a structured protocol: the VAR states "possible clear and obvious error" or "possible serious missed incident," describes the issue, and provides supporting evidence upon request. On-field reviews (OFRs) involve the personally examining selected footage on a pitchside monitor in a designated referee area (RRA), typically located near the halfway line for . Triggered by a VAR recommendation or the 's own initiative upon suspicion of an error, the process begins with the signaling play to stop (if ongoing) in a neutral area and displaying the "TV signal" to indicate . The VAR supplies replay clips, which the views independently before returning to the field to announce the final decision, potentially altering disciplinary sanctions or restarting play accordingly. OFRs are mandatory for subjective judgments, such as the intensity of fouls or player interference in offside scenarios, to uphold the 's primary responsibility. Once play restarts after certain decisions (e.g., free kicks or throw-ins), reviews are generally precluded except for or specific violent conduct, preventing post-facto disruptions. Throughout both processes, the on-field referee's prevails, with VAR serving as an assistive tool rather than an override mechanism; players and coaches cannot influence or request reviews. These procedures, standardized since VAR's integration into the Laws of the Game in 2018/19, aim to correct material errors while preserving game flow.

Historical Development

Origins and Initial Trials

The concept of the video assistant referee (VAR) emerged in the early as part of the Royal Football Association's (KNVB) Refereeing 2.0 project, aimed at enhancing referee decision-making through technological assistance to address perceptual limitations in high-speed play. Initial development focused on integrating video review to verify subjective calls, with mock simulations conducted in the to test feasibility without disrupting match flow. Offline trials began during the 2012–13 season, where video footage was reviewed post-match to evaluate potential error rates in decisions such as goals, penalties, red cards, and . Following these trials, the KNVB began petitioning the (IFAB) in 2014 to introduce video assistance for referees. These non-intrusive tests provided data on review accuracy but did not influence live outcomes, allowing developers to refine protocols for minimal game interruption. The IFAB, responsible for the Laws of the Game, approved experimental live trials in its 2016 annual meeting, setting criteria for limited interventions on clear and obvious errors. The first live VAR trial occurred in a July 2016 preseason friendly between and in the , followed shortly by its debut in an international friendly between and on September 1, 2016, where it assisted in reviewing a potential penalty. In competitive fixtures, VAR was first used on September 21, 2016, during a match between Ajax and Willem II, marking the initial application in a professional, non-exhibition context. These early trials, confined to select Dutch competitions and internationals, demonstrated potential for reducing referee errors by up to 10–15% in reviewed incidents, though they highlighted challenges like review duration averaging 60–90 seconds. IFAB monitored outcomes closely, requiring evidence of consistent accuracy before broader authorization.

Key Adoption Milestones and Global Rollout

The concept of video assistant referee (VAR) emerged from trials initiated by the (IFAB) in 2016, with initial live experiments conducted in friendly matches, such as the June 2016 international friendly between and . Early competitive implementations followed in 2017, when Australia's A-League became the first top-flight domestic league to adopt VAR for its regular season matches. (MLS) in the United States introduced VAR in its 2017 season, starting with competitive fixtures after a demonstration at the 2017 on August 2. IFAB formally approved VAR for use in official competitions on March 3, 2018, enabling its integration into the Laws of the Game. This paved the way for its debut in a major FIFA tournament at the in , where VAR was employed across all 64 matches, reviewing 440 incidents and overturning 20 on-field decisions. European leagues accelerated adoption shortly thereafter: Germany's and Italy's implemented VAR in their 2017-18 seasons, followed by Spain's and France's in 2018-19. The English joined in the 2019-20 season after unanimous club approval in 2018, marking a significant expansion in one of the world's most prominent domestic competitions. VAR's global rollout extended to continental and international events, including the from the 2018-19 season onward. By 2022, it had been adopted in over 100 competitions worldwide, encompassing major leagues in Asia (e.g., J-League), (e.g., Brasileirão), and , though implementation varied by federation resources and regulatory approval. Lower-tier and regional leagues, such as those in and parts of , experienced delayed or partial rollouts due to infrastructural challenges, with full global standardization remaining uneven as of 2023. FIFA's ongoing refinements, including semi-automated offside technology integrations, have supported broader dissemination in elite tournaments like the .

Evolution Through Major Events

The first operational use of VAR in a professional football match occurred on September 21, 2016, during the tie between Ajax and Willem II in the , where it assisted in reviewing potential offside and penalty incidents, establishing early procedural benchmarks for intervention only on clear errors. This , part of IFAB's experimental phase, demonstrated feasibility but highlighted needs for standardized communication between on-field referees and video assistants, influencing subsequent guidelines. Following domestic cup tests, the became the first top-tier league to integrate VAR for the entire 2017/18 season, with its inaugural intervention on August 18, 2017, in the opening match between and , awarding a penalty after review; this rollout reduced refereeing errors by approximately 10% in reviewed incidents but exposed inconsistencies in subjective calls like handballs, prompting IFAB to refine training protocols. The represented VAR's breakthrough in a global tournament, applied across 62 matches with interventions in 19 cases, including four penalties awarded and seven decisions overturned, elevating overall decision accuracy from a pre-tournament baseline of 95% to 99.3%. While officials hailed it as ushering a "new era" for officiating by correcting high-stakes errors—such as penalties in vs. and vs. —the system's debut also generated debate over interruptions, with critics noting prolonged stoppages in matches like vs. , where multiple reviews altered the flow. These events catalyzed post-tournament adjustments by IFAB, including expanded use of on-field reviews via pitchside monitors to enhance transparency and referee ownership, shifting from VAR-centric overrides to collaborative verification limited to "clear and obvious errors." Subsequent league adoptions, such as the English Premier League's implementation for the 2019/20 season, tested these refinements amid initial operational challenges, where VAR overturned 109 of 2,400 checked incidents but drew for inconsistent subjective interpretations, like red-card reviews, leading to mandatory enhanced referee-VAR . By 2022, technological evolution peaked at the in , integrating semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) with VAR—employing 12 tracking cameras and AI to generate real-time positional data—reducing offside review times from 70 seconds to under 30 in key calls, such as Japan's opener against , thereby addressing prior delays while maintaining human oversight for final rulings. This hybrid advancement, absent in 2018, reflected iterative responses to empirical feedback on efficiency, with reporting fewer disputes in tight offside scenarios across the tournament.

Usage Across Competitions

International and Continental Tournaments

VAR was introduced at the during the 2018 edition in , marking its debut in a premier international tournament, where officials reviewed incidents involving goals, penalties, red cards, and mistaken identity using up to 33 cameras and four VAR personnel per match. The system corrected 14 on-field decisions across 64 matches, including the first-ever World Cup penalty awarded via VAR in the France-Australia opener on June 16, 2018. extended VAR to the in 2017 as a precursor trial and has mandated it for subsequent World Cups, such as 2022 in , alongside the , where full implementation includes semi-automated offside technology integration by 2025. UEFA adopted VAR in the from the round of 16 knockout phase in February 2019, following trials in domestic leagues, before expanding it to all matches starting in the 2019-20 season across the competition's group and knockout stages. The technology has since been standard in 's continental events, including the from 2019-20 and the finals, with protocols emphasizing minimal interference to preserve game flow. CONMEBOL implemented VAR for the in , where it overturned multiple goals—such as three disallowed for in their group draw against on June 19—and averaged approximately two minutes per review across matches. The system was also phased into from the quarterfinals in 2018, becoming fully operational in subsequent editions and South American qualifiers. The AFC introduced VAR from the quarterfinal stage of the in the UAE, applying it to the final four matches, before broader adoption in events like the , where all 32 games used it starting in 2020 and fully in 2024. CAF followed suit at the , deploying VAR from the quarterfinals onward, and expanded to all 52 matches for the 2021 tournament hosted in in 2022, enhancing review consistency despite initial infrastructural challenges in African venues.

Domestic Leagues and Cups

Major domestic leagues adopted VAR following successful trials, with the and implementing it for the 2017–18 season. and followed in 2018–19, while the introduced VAR for the 2019–20 season. Major League Soccer (MLS) became one of the earliest adopters among top domestic leagues, integrating VAR starting in 2017 after IFAB approval.
LeagueIntroduction Season
Bundesliga2017–18
Serie A2017–18
MLS2017
2018–19
Ligue 12018–19
Premier League2019–20
In domestic cups, VAR usage typically begins in later stages to manage costs and infrastructure limitations at lower-tier venues. The employs VAR from the fifth round through the final, as confirmed for the 2024–25 season, excluding earlier rounds hosted at non-Premier League grounds lacking compatible facilities. Similarly, the introduces VAR from the round of 16 onward, avoiding it in initial rounds involving amateur or regional clubs to ensure uniformity. The has utilized VAR since at least the round of 16 in recent editions, with expansion to earlier phases in some seasons depending on venue capabilities. Empirical data from domestic leagues indicate substantial accuracy gains post-VAR. In the , referee decision correctness rose from 82% pre-VAR to 96% in recent seasons, with video review errors declining further in 2024–25. and studies report error reductions of approximately 80%, elevating overall decision accuracy to 98% in reviewed incidents. However, implementation varies; some leagues like trialed on-field referee announcements for VAR decisions in 2025, aiming to enhance transparency amid ongoing debates over subjectivity. Controversies persist in domestic contexts, often centered on inconsistent application and perceived home biases. In the , high-profile errors, such as offside misjudgments in key matches, have fueled criticism despite overall improvements. Bundesliga cup ties have seen disputes over non-VAR penalties in early rounds, exacerbating tensions in high-stakes games. These issues highlight that while VAR mitigates clear errors, residual human interpretation continues to provoke debate in domestic competitions.

Regional and Lower-Tier Adaptations

In lower-tier leagues and regional competitions, full Video Assistant Referee (VAR) systems are frequently impractical due to high costs for equipment, trained personnel, and venue infrastructure, prompting adaptations like "VAR Light" protocols that utilize fewer cameras—typically four or more but optimized for efficiency—and streamlined review processes to reduce operational demands. These systems, certified by for non-elite competitions, prioritize essential checks such as goals, penalties, red cards, and while minimizing delays, making them feasible for divisions lacking the resources of top-flight leagues. A prominent adaptation is Football Video Support (FVS), a simplified VAR variant trialed by at the , where coaches can issue up to two challenges per match for on-field decisions, with referees reviewing footage only upon successful appeals to confirm errors. This coach-involved model, akin to challenge systems in and , aims to enhance accountability and reduce unnecessary interruptions in youth and lower-tier games, though it risks overuse if not strictly limited, as evidenced by its testing to balance fairness against game flow. has considered expanding FVS as a potential replacement for traditional VAR in resource-constrained settings, citing its lower infrastructural footprint. In specific regional contexts, such as Spain's lower divisions (e.g., Primera RFEF), the Royal Spanish Football Federation approved a low-cost VAR system in July 2025, enabling coaches to request reviews of key incidents like goals and penalties via on-pitch monitors, with implementation deferred for evaluation to address affordability while maintaining review integrity. Similarly, Spain's (women's top division, often adapted for broader lower-tier principles) introduced a "VAR-lite" in 2025, limiting teams to two challenges per game as a cost-effective alternative that empowers managers without full-time VAR crews. These adaptations reflect broader challenges in adoption, including training deficits and inconsistent video quality in smaller venues, which can undermine accuracy without rigorous IFAB-compliant protocols. Many and regional leagues worldwide, particularly in developing confederations like , opt out of VAR entirely, relying on traditional officiating due to persistent logistical barriers.

Empirical Evidence of Impact

Accuracy Improvements and Error Correction Rates

Empirical studies have consistently demonstrated that the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system enhances the accuracy of on-field referees' decisions in key match incidents, including goals, penalty awards, direct red cards, and mistaken identity. A meta-analysis of referee performance across 13 men's national leagues found that VAR intervention increased decision accuracy from 92.1% to 98.3% for these critical areas. Similarly, in controlled trials, VAR rectified 77.5% of the 89 critical errors identified in on-field decisions, elevating overall accuracy in reviewed categories from 93% to 98.9%. UEFA data from high-level competitions, including the Champions League, indicate that referees achieve 97.49% accuracy without VAR assistance, rising to 99.60% when technology is utilized for verification. This improvement stems from VAR's protocol limiting interventions to "clear and obvious errors," which occurs in approximately 8-10% of matches, primarily correcting subjective misjudgments under pressure. Independent peer-reviewed corroborates these gains, attributing the uplift to multiple camera angles and slow-motion replay reducing perceptual biases in fast-paced scenarios. Error correction rates remain high, with VAR overturning initial calls in over 50% of reviewed incidents across major leagues, though incorrect VAR recommendations are rare, comprising less than 1% of interventions in recent seasons. For instance, in the English through mid-2023/24, VAR correctly adjusted 57 decisions while maintaining a 96% overall referee accuracy rate.
SourcePre-VAR Accuracy (Key Decisions)Post-VAR Accuracy (Key Decisions)Error Correction Rate
et al. (2021), 13 leagues92.1%98.3%N/A
FIFA/IFAB Trials (2020)93%98.9%77.5% of critical errors
(2025)97.49%99.60%>50% of reviews
These metrics highlight VAR's causal role in minimizing errors through evidence-based review, though gains are most pronounced in unambiguous cases, with persistent challenges in interpretive gray areas addressed in subsequent analyses.

Effects on Match Statistics and Dynamics

The introduction of video assistant (VAR) has altered several key statistics in professional football. Empirical analyses indicate a notable increase in penalties awarded following VAR implementation. For instance, across Europe's leagues, penalties rose by approximately 12% in seasons post-VAR adoption compared to pre-VAR baselines. Similarly, a study of the English over five years (2018–2023) found statistically significant increases in average penalties per match, alongside higher total goals scored. At men's tournaments, VAR correlated with significant upticks in penalties (p < 0.05), attributed to enhanced scrutiny of incidents within the . Conversely, offsides have declined under VAR protocols, as video reviews enable more precise offside determinations, reducing erroneous flags. A nine-year analysis of Brazil's Série A (2015–2023) documented fewer offside calls post-VAR, alongside fewer fouls in aggregate due to minimized penalties. A and of elite football matches confirmed VAR's role in lowering offside incidences while exerting a significant overall effect on disciplinary actions, though direct red cards issued on-field decreased as referees deferred more to VAR input. Regarding goals scored, findings are inconsistent. While some league-specific data show modest increases—potentially from corrected non-awards—a broader of pre- and post-VAR seasons across multiple competitions detected no statistically significant change in average goals per . On dynamics, VAR extends effective playing time: data revealed significant increases in ball-in-play duration during both halves (p < 0.05), and Brazilian league averaged longer overall durations due to review pauses offsetting prior stoppages. However, this comes with added interruptions; reviews typically add 1–2 minutes per intervention, fragmenting momentum and prompting referees to issue fewer immediate cards to avoid escalations pending verification. These shifts suggest VAR promotes factual corrections but introduces temporal trade-offs in game rhythm.

Analysis of Bias Mitigation and Fairness Outcomes

The introduction of VAR was intended to mitigate referee biases arising from real-time pressures, such as crowd influence favoring home teams or subconscious favoritism toward prominent players or clubs, by enabling post-decision reviews of clear errors in four key areas: goals, penalties, red cards, and . Empirical analyses of professional leagues, including the and , indicate that VAR partially reduces home bias in refereeing decisions; for instance, a 2023 study of Italian matches found that while pre-VAR referees issued significantly more yellow cards and fouls against away teams, VAR implementation diminished this disparity, though residual bias persisted in non-reviewed incidents. Similarly, Holder et al. (2022) reported that VAR lowered home bias in erroneous calls, with away teams benefiting from corrected penalties and dismissals at rates closer to neutral expectations. However, broader fairness outcomes remain mixed, as VAR does not eliminate all human elements in interpretation. A 2024 meta-analysis of football matches across multiple leagues found no significant VAR-associated reduction in overall metrics, such as goals scored or match result direction, suggesting that while isolated errors are corrected, systemic factors like playing time or tactical adjustments sustain disparities. Studies on referee-VAR interactions highlight that less experienced VAR officials recommend more interventions, potentially introducing variability, yet overall decision accuracy rose from 92.1% to 98.3% in reviewed national leagues, aiding fairness by standardizing outcomes for smaller or away teams otherwise disadvantaged by on-field subjectivity. Claims of favoring clubs over smaller ones lack robust empirical support, with data instead pointing to VAR's neutral effect on competitive imbalances driven by non-referee factors. Persistent challenges include protocol limitations, where "clear and obvious" thresholds allow subjective overrides, potentially perpetuating biases if VAR operators share referees' predispositions; for example, a analysis noted unchanged home advantages in points and goals post-VAR, attributing this to incomplete coverage of minor fouls. Despite these, longitudinal data from leagues like the show VAR correlating with fairer resource allocation, such as balanced penalty awards, enhancing perceived equity without fully eradicating crowd-independent referee tendencies.

Controversies and Criticisms

Disruptions to Game Flow and Fan Experience

The implementation of video assistant referee (VAR) technology has introduced significant interruptions to the continuous flow of football matches, primarily through review processes that halt play for on-field officials to consult footage. In the English , VAR checks averaged 64 seconds during the 2023-24 season, contributing to matches extending beyond 101 minutes on average despite efforts to curb time-wasting. By the 2024-25 season, these checks had shortened to an average of 40 seconds, yet cumulative delays from multiple reviews per still extend overall duration and fragment momentum, as referees pause action to assess incidents such as potential offsides or fouls. These pauses disrupt the game's rhythm, altering player decision-making and tactical continuity, with empirical analyses indicating reduced spontaneous play due to anticipated interventions. Studies on match dynamics, including those from Brazilian , show VAR usage correlates with fewer continuous phases of possession, as players hesitate amid uncertainty over potential overturns. While proponents argue such delays enhance decision accuracy, causal examination reveals they incentivize tactical stalling, as teams exploit periods, further eroding the fluid, high-tempo nature of elite football. Fan experience suffers from these interruptions, fostering frustration over delayed celebrations and prolonged uncertainty, particularly in stadiums where supporters lack immediate visual access to reviews. A 2021 Premier League-commissioned survey of over 33,000 fans found only 26% supported VAR, with 94% reporting diminished enjoyment due to extended decision times and inability to provisionally celebrate goals. Similarly, a 2023 fans' survey indicated 63.3% opposition to VAR, with 79.1% of match-attendees rating their in-person experience as poor or very poor, attributing dissatisfaction to fragmented spectacle and eroded emotional immediacy. Attendance surveys underscore attendance declines linked to VAR's intrusiveness, with over 40% of respondents in one study planning fewer visits owing to perceived ruination of live viewing. In-stadium announcements and big-screen replays, intended to mitigate , often exacerbate tension by prolonging waits without resolving underlying opacity in subjective calls. Despite some cross-league data showing majority fan support for fairness gains in select markets like and , English and broader European polling consistently highlights flow disruptions as a net detriment to engagement, prioritizing procedural caution over experiential vitality.

Persistent Subjectivity and Implementation Flaws

Despite its objective technological foundation, VAR cannot eliminate inherent subjectivity in football's rule interpretations, particularly for incidents involving , such as deliberate or the severity of challenges. For instance, determining whether a handball is accidental or willful relies on human assessment of player movement and , leading to varied outcomes even with multiple camera angles. This persists because VAR protocols limit interventions to "clear and obvious errors," yet gray-area decisions—like marginal offside calls measured in millimeters—often spark debate over alignment with the game's spirit, as referees must reconcile precise data with broader contextual judgment. Implementation flaws compound this, including inconsistent protocol adherence and technical-human interface issues. In the English , the 2024-25 season recorded 18 VAR errors, a 42% reduction from 31 the prior year, yet these included missed interventions and incorrect recommendations, often due to VAR officials overriding or failing to flag subjective calls. Similar inconsistencies appeared in the January 2026 Carabao Cup semi-finals, where Manchester City's goal was disallowed after VAR review due to Erling Haaland being offside and interfering with Newcastle United's defender, while Arsenal's goal stood despite Viktor Gyökeres in a comparable offside position potentially impeding Chelsea's Marc Guiu, drawing fan criticism for uneven application of offside interference rules. Across competitions, discrepancies arise from varying training standards and enforcement of the "minimum interference" principle, resulting in over-reliance on reviews for non-clear errors and perceptions of arbitrariness. Professional players report frustration with such variability, noting that inconsistent application erodes trust in decision accuracy, as VAR strays from its corrective intent toward re-refereeing subjective elements. Further flaws stem from human factors in VAR operation, such as decision —undesirable variability in judging identical scenarios—and less experienced VARs recommending more interventions, some disregarded by on-field . Empirical analyses confirm that while VAR reduces outright factual errors, it does not uniformly mitigate interpretive biases, with studies showing persistent referee variability in high-stakes contexts. These issues highlight causal limitations: aids observation but cannot supplant the rulebook's or enforce uniform human cognition, perpetuating calls for refined guidelines to curb over-interpretation.

Unintended Effects on Competition and Teams

The implementation of video assistant referee (VAR) has produced unintended shifts in competitive dynamics, notably by differentially impacting strong and weak teams. In the Turkish , an analysis of 3,329 matches spanning the 2014/2015 to 2023/2024 seasons found that VAR diminished for dominant "" clubs while enhancing it for weaker teams, positioning the technology as a relative handicap for elite sides and a safeguard for underdogs in lopsided encounters. Similarly, research on matches indicated that VAR mitigates pre-existing referee biases favoring stronger or home teams, thereby bolstering outcomes for less favored squads without altering overall goal tallies or home win rates. These effects stem from VAR's correction of subjective errors that historically may have advantaged superior teams, fostering a more at the potential cost of eroding the margins of dominance relied upon by top performers. VAR has also prompted behavioral adaptations among referees, leading to heightened caution and deference to reviews, which can disrupt traditional on-field and influence match control. Referees, aware of post-decision , increasingly avoid provisional calls without video confirmation, reducing spontaneous judgments in ambiguous situations and prolonging decision timelines. In the over the 2019–2022 seasons, following VAR interventions on potential penalties, referees doubled yellow card issuances in subsequent play (0.08 per minute post-intervention versus 0.04 pre-intervention across 94 reviewed incidents), a statistically significant escalation (p = 0.004) interpreted as an attempt to reassert disciplinary control amid perceived vulnerability. No comparable rise occurred in foul detections, highlighting selective intensification in punitive measures. These referee tendencies, in turn, affect team strategies and performance metrics. Players have shown increased post-VAR, evidenced by reduced duel participation, which alters physical engagement and tactical aggression without commensurate gains in effective play time. Stronger teams, accustomed to exploiting marginal leniency, face amplified challenges in maintaining momentum, as corrected calls on fouls or penalties neutralize prior edges, while weaker teams gain from rectified disadvantages. Overall, while not uniformly transforming league standings, these dynamics introduce variability in outcomes, compelling teams to adapt to a regime where correction inadvertently recalibrates power imbalances.

Reforms and Ongoing Developments

Technological Enhancements and Semi-Automation

Semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) represents a key advancement in VAR systems, integrating multiple high-speed cameras—typically 12 or more— with to track player and ball positions in real time, generating virtual offside lines for referee review. This tool was first deployed at the elite level during the in , where it supported video officials in producing faster and more consistent offside determinations by automating initial position calculations while requiring human verification. Subsequent implementations expanded to competitions like the in the 2023-24 season and , with trials in the demonstrating reduced review times without compromising precision. In 2024, featured enhanced SAOT paired with AI-driven player tracking and connected ball technology from , which embeds sensors to detect precise ball-body contact and motion, enabling quicker resolution of marginal offside calls. Empirical indicates these systems cut offside decision times by up to 31 seconds per incident compared to manual VAR analysis, while general VAR accuracy rates have risen to 96% in the 2024-25 season and 98.3% in controlled studies, up from pre-VAR baselines around 92%. The technology's stems from standardized optical tracking, minimizing variability in line drawing, though it does not eliminate interpretive elements of the , such as determining the moment of the final pass. Further enhancements include live broadcasting of SAOT-generated graphics to stadium screens, as introduced for the , allowing in-venue spectators real-time insight into decisions previously opaque. The English adopted SAOT operationally from April 12, 2025, following non-live testing and a debut in the fifth round on February 10, 2025, marking a shift toward broader semi- in top-tier leagues. Emerging prototypes, such as AI-assisted last-touch detection for throw-ins using skeletal tracking , suggest potential expansion beyond offsides, though full remains constrained by the need for on-field to preserve human judgment in subjective scenarios. These developments prioritize empirical calibration against ground-truth from post-match analyses, ensuring enhancements address causal factors like optical errors in traditional video review.

Proposed Protocol Changes and Alternatives

Several proposals have emerged to refine VAR protocols, aiming to address criticisms of inconsistency and limited scope while minimizing disruptions. The (IFAB) is considering extending VAR intervention to second yellow cards, which cumulatively result in red cards, to prevent erroneous dismissals that alter match outcomes; this change, discussed at IFAB meetings in October 2025, would require VAR review only if the on-field decision leads to a sending-off, potentially increasing accuracy in disciplinary actions without overhauling the system. Additionally, IFAB has proposed allowing referees to make public announcements following lengthy VAR checks or reviews, providing transparency to stadium audiences and broadcasters, as outlined in the 2025/26 Laws of the Game updates. Other protocol adjustments focus on integrating VAR with anti-time-wasting measures, such as penalizing goalkeepers for holding the ball longer than eight seconds with an indirect or corner to the opposition, potentially reviewed via VAR to enforce consistency across competitions. A more transformative idea involves empowering coaches to initiate limited VAR reviews—up to two per match—shifting some responsibility from centralized VAR officials to on-field personnel, with trials proposed for integration into select competitions to test feasibility and impact on game flow. As an alternative to full VAR implementation, particularly in resource-constrained leagues, Football Video Support (FVS) has gained traction as a streamlined, cost-effective system. FVS employs fewer cameras (typically 4-6) and emphasizes coach-initiated challenges rather than proactive VAR interventions, allowing teams to request reviews for subjective decisions like fouls or offsides, but limited to factual errors or clear misses; plans trials at the , positioning FVS not as a VAR replacement but as a scalable option for lower divisions or youth tournaments. IFAB extended FVS trials in December 2024 following successful tests at events like the , highlighting its potential to reduce costs by up to 70% compared to traditional VAR while maintaining referee autonomy. Critics note that FVS's reliance on coach challenges could introduce strategic gaming, yet proponents argue it democratizes access to video review without the delays of full VAR protocols.

Recent Data and Future Projections

In the 2024-25 season, video assistant (VAR) decisions achieved a 96% accuracy rate, a substantial increase from the pre-VAR era's 82% accuracy. This improvement coincided with 108 VAR overturns across matches up to August 2025, reflecting targeted interventions primarily in goals, penalties, red cards, and . Similarly, Football Australia's analysis of the 2024-25 A-League season reported 98.8% correctness in VAR decisions, assessed by independent experts. Error rates have declined notably; the Premier League's Key Match Incidents panel identified only 18 VAR errors for the full 2024-25 season, a 42% reduction from 31 errors in 2023-24. Overall referee decision accuracy with VAR support rose to 98.3% in studied matches, compared to 92.1% without it, based on empirical reviews of 13 leagues. These figures indicate VAR's role in minimizing high-stakes mistakes, though panels continue to flag occasional subjective interpretations in offside and rulings. Projections for VAR evolution center on semi-automated offside technology (SAOT), which automates player and ball positioning via AI-driven cameras and sensors to generate offside lines in seconds, reducing review times by up to 31 seconds per incident. The plans full SAOT implementation for the 2025-26 season following successful testing and its debut in the fifth round in February 2025, aiming to enhance precision while minimizing disruptions. Broader adoption across and competitions is anticipated by 2026, with market analyses forecasting a 19.4% for such technologies through 2031, driven by demands for faster, data-verified rulings. These advancements are expected to push overall VAR accuracy toward 99% in automated scenarios, though human oversight will persist to address non-quantifiable elements like intent.

References

  1. https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/video-assistant-referee-var-protocol/
  2. https://inside.fifa.com/innovation/standards/video-assistant-referee
  3. https://www.soccer.com/guide/what-is-var-in-soccer
  4. https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13066177/var-premier-league-claims-96-per-cent-of-referee-decisions-are-correct-so-what-is-future-of-technology-in-football
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9413155/
  6. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17479541251334533
  7. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/17479541241289078
  8. https://impakter.com/var-statistics-and-how-new-technology-is-impacting-soccer/
  9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381103690_The_effect_of_video_assistant_referee_VAR_on_match_performance_in_elite_football_A_systematic_review_with_meta-analysis
  10. https://inside.fifa.com/innovation/world-cup-2022/video-assistant-referee-var
  11. https://inside.fifa.com/innovation/standards/video-assistant-referee/video-assistant-referee-technology
  12. https://www.premierleague.com/en/VAR
  13. https://www.olympics.com/en/news/what-is-var-in-football
  14. https://sites.duke.edu/wcwp/2019/04/01/a-brief-history-and-defense-of-var/
  15. https://www.sportmonks.com/glossary/var-video-assistant-referee/
  16. https://www.wired.com/story/var-football-world-cup/
  17. https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/1293198
  18. https://www.redbull.com/us-en/what-is-var-soccer
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7835707/
  20. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5499347/2024/05/17/var-premier-league-pgmol-explained/
  21. https://www.sportsboom.com/football/when-was-var-introduced/
  22. https://worldsoccertalk.com/news/which-soccer-leagues-and-cups-dont-use-var-20230906-WST-454220.html
  23. https://allianz-arena.com/en/news/2017/08/first-var-decision
  24. https://barcainnovationhub.fcbarcelona.com/blog/how-var-has-changed-football/
  25. https://inside.fifa.com/news/refereeing-and-var-at-the-2018-fifa-world-cup-a-new-era-for-football
  26. https://www.usanetwork.com/usa-insider/what-is-var-why-does-it-cause-premier-league-controversies
  27. https://inside.fifa.com/innovation/world-cup-2022/semi-automated-offside-technology
  28. https://inside.fifa.com/media-releases/semi-automated-offside-technology-to-be-used-at-fifa-world-cup-2022-tm
  29. https://inside.fifa.com/innovation/standards/video-assistant-referee/var-at-the-2018-fifa-world-cup
  30. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/37496921/world-cup-using-var-explanation-how-works
  31. https://www.uefa.com/news-media/news/024c-0f8e663255eb-684192980f0b-1000--var-to-be-used-in-uefa-champions-league-knockout-phase/
  32. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/45665012
  33. https://www.reuters.com/article/sports/copa-america-organizers-satisfied-with-use-of-var-despite-lengthy-delays-idUSKCN1TQ2LU/
  34. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jun/19/brazil-frustrated-by-var-in-copa-america-draw-with-venezuela
  35. https://www.worldsoccer.com/world-soccer-latest/var-usage-still-infancy-copa-libertadores-407411
  36. https://www.sportingnews.com/ca/afc-asian-cup/news/afc-asian-cup-2019-india-var-quart-final/dcwueaz4qzut11lyukhr7f2fa
  37. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/37574248/var-used-afcon-quarters-semis
  38. https://www.bbc.com/sport/africa/59915181
  39. https://www.dw.com/en/var-in-the-premier-league-how-has-it-worked-in-the-bundesliga/a-46333249
  40. https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2017/aug/21/serie-a-opening-weekend-good-advert-video-assistant-referee
  41. https://en.as.com/soccer/how-does-var-work-in-laliga-when-can-it-intervene-n/
  42. https://worldsoccertalk.com/news/french-league-to-use-var-in-all-matches-this-season-20180801-CMS-248853.html/
  43. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5500872/2024/05/18/var-spain-germany-italy-mls-nwsl/
  44. https://www.bundesliga.com/en/bundesliga/news/var-what-is-video-assistant-referee-how-does-it-work-8107
  45. https://www.sportspro.com/news/serie-a-puts-faith-in-var/
  46. https://www.beinsports.com/en-mena/football/la-liga/articles/laliga-to-introduce-var-next-season-4
  47. https://www.thefa.com/news/2024/dec/16/var-to-be-used-in-emirates-fa-cup-fifth-round-onwards-20241612
  48. https://www.fcbarcelonanoticias.com/en/copa-del-rey/since-which-round-uses-the-var-copa-del-rey_264659_102.html
  49. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/06/25/var-increases-refereeing-accuracy-but-not-the-total-penalty-count
  50. https://www.facebook.com/groups/423121659385407/posts/1396197858744444/
  51. https://www.givemesport.com/worst-var-decisions-football-history-ranked/
  52. https://www.bavarianfootballworks.com/2018/5/21/17374832/bayern-munich-eintracht-frankfurt-dfb-pokal-video-assistant-referee-var-penalty-boateng-martinez
  53. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/43701103/var-errors-fall-premier-league-sets-model-other-leagues
  54. https://www.dartfish.com/blog/difference-between-full-var-systems-and-var-light-systems-the-full-guide/
  55. https://sports.yahoo.com/article/simplified-version-var-emerging-vital-202247799.html
  56. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/42742458/var-coach-challenges-trialed-new-competitions
  57. https://sportsin.biz/fifa-considers-eliminating-var-and-adopting-the-new-fvs-system/
  58. https://tribuna.com/en/blogs/spanish-federation-implements-lowcost-var-in-lower-divisions/
  59. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6597749/2025/09/06/liga-f-var-challenges-system-explained/
  60. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/inside-sports-law/blog/2022/02/concacaf-and-var
  61. https://refrsports.com/blog/what-is-var-in-soccer-2025-overview-how-it-works
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7668198/
  63. https://www.uefa.com/news-media/news/0298-1d96fe1ffbba-032255b850f9-1000--roberto-rosetti-uefa-var-symposium-a-first-step-towards-a-un/
  64. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343664407_Video_assistant_referees_VAR_The_impact_of_technology_on_decision_making_in_association_football_referees
  65. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/context/theses/article/4475/viewcontent/The_Impact_of_Video_Assistant_Referee__VAR__on_the_English_Premier_League.pdf
  66. https://apsportseditors.org/var-statistics/
  67. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349885930_The_impact_of_video_assistant_referee_VAR_on_match_performance_variables_at_men%27s_FIFA_World_Cup_tournaments
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388960138_Effect_of_Video_Assistant_Referee_VAR_System_on_Match_Statistics_A_Nine-Year_Retrospective_Analysis_of_the_Brazilian_National_League
  69. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/287479/1/s11573-021-01058-5.pdf
  70. https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/24629/1/Meta-analysis%2520of%2520the%2520effects%2520of%2520VAR%2520on%2520goals%2520scored%2520and%2520home%2520advantage%2520in%2520football.pdf
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10681297/
  72. https://www.wiwi.uni-muenster.de/io/sites/io/files/forschen/downloads/dp-io_04_2024.pdf
  73. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17543371241242914
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1469029225001232
  75. https://bmcsportsscimedrehabil.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13102-024-00813-9
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1469029223000109
  77. https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/05/premier-league-waiting-time-var-decisions-increased
  78. https://news.sky.com/story/premier-league-admits-var-delays-could-be-spoiling-fans-enjoyment-of-football-13066285
  79. https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4243549
  80. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/jun/02/var-given-thumbs-down-by-fans-for-premier-league-study
  81. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/65971724
  82. https://www.reuters.com/article/sports/survey-finds-more-than-40-of-fans-set-to-attend-fewer-games-due-to-var-idUSKCN2DE0SA/
  83. https://www.statista.com/chart/30699/public-opinion-of-var/
  84. https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/half-english-football-fans-think-var-has-had-negative-impact-experience-match-going-fans
  85. https://www.[espn.com](/page/ESPN.com)/soccer/story/_/id/37628835/how-var-changed-premier-league-penalties-offside-handball
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11047540/
  87. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/45340176/every-premier-league-var-error-ranking-winners-losers-referee-stats-2024-25
  88. https://www.si.com/soccer/every-2024-25-premier-league-var-error
  89. https://www.goal.com/en-us/lists/everyone-hates-var-fans-flummoxed-arsenal-goal-chelsea-stands-viktor-gyokeres-offside-man-city-ruled-out-identical-erling-haaland-infringement/blt5a111b0960e04b80
  90. https://supersaturdayofsport.co.uk/the-evolution-of-var-in-modern-football-impact-and-controversies/
  91. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23750472.2025.2553858
  92. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1612197X.2025.2453462
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1469029225001402
  94. https://idrottsforum.org/feature-skauge191004/
  95. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/06/21/var-unintended-consequences/
  96. https://www.runi.ac.il/media/lbinqckt/2024-football-referees-issue-more-yellow-cards-following-var-interventions.pdf
  97. https://research.cbs.dk/files/98727842/1561575_Behind_the_Screen_S128049_Thesis.pdf
  98. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/ced9pe8869do
  99. https://infotechsports.com/semi-automated-offside-technology/
  100. https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/news-events/news/expert-comment-how-ai-can-dramatically-reduce-the-time-it-takes-to-make-var-offside-calls-in-premier-league-football-matches/
  101. https://www.insideworldfootball.com/2025/06/09/fifa-puts-faith-new-tech-amp-club-world-cup-fan-appeal/
  102. https://www.premierleague.com/en/news/4256036
  103. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/43824533/semi-automated-var-offside-used-first-fa-cup
  104. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12283-025-00518-3
  105. https://www.the-independent.com/sport/football/ifab-var-red-cards-time-wasting-rules-changes-b2851648.html
  106. https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2025/1024/1540347-var-second-yellow-card-to-be-discussed-at-ifab-meeting/
  107. https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/2025-26-law-changes-explained
  108. https://refchat.co.uk/threads/ifab-law-changes-for-2025-26.25054/
  109. https://worldsoccertalk.com/news/the-4-regulatory-changes-fifa-is-preparing-from-var-to-time-wasting-rules/
  110. https://www.si.com/soccer/fifa-test-var-alternative-2025-u20-world-cup
  111. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/42347583/fifa-hopes-expand-trials-var-style-coach-challenges
  112. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5965465/2024/12/03/football-video-support-coachs-challenge-var/
  113. https://www.besoccer.com/new/fvs-as-an-alternative-to-var-two-reviews-can-be-requested-per-match-1337769
  114. https://worldsoccertalk.com/news/fifas-potential-rule-change-football-video-support-fvs-system-and-how-it-would-impact-coaching-strategies/
  115. https://footballaustralia.com.au/news/referee-and-var-data-shows-clear-improvement-across-202425-a-league-season
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12121110/
  117. https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6235090/2025/04/01/semi-automated-offside-premier-league/
  118. https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13308478/semi-automated-offside-technology-to-be-used-for-fa-cup-fifth-round-in-english-football-first
  119. https://www.lucintel.com/semi-automated-offside-technology-market.aspx
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.