The difference at a glance
A VAR check is an assessment of a potentially reviewable incident; a VAR review is a formal reconsideration of the referee’s decision. Many checks end without a formal review. When a review is needed, the referee may inspect footage on a pitch-side monitor or use factual information supplied by the VAR.
The distinction makes more sense when placed alongside the types of incidents VAR may review.
Step 1: The automatic check
During a match using VAR, video officials monitor the action and check footage for relevant incidents involving goals, penalties, red cards and mistaken identity. The 2026/27 rules also include certain additional situations, such as clearly incorrect second cautions, with specific limits.
The video team uses available angles and can compare normal speed with slow motion. The goal is to establish whether the referee’s initial decision may contain a clear and obvious error or whether a serious incident has been missed.
If the footage does not identify a reason to intervene, the assessment commonly ends as a silent check. There need not be a public signal for each check, and no on-field monitor visit is required.
Step 2: Communication and delay
If the review team needs additional time before play restarts, the referee may delay the restart while receiving information through the headset. One familiar signal is a finger to the earpiece with the other arm extended; this indicates that information is being received, not that the decision has already been overturned.
Where a potential error is identified, the VAR communicates with the referee and can recommend a review. Only the referee may initiate that review. Players and team officials are not allowed to demand a formal review by surrounding the referee.
Step 3: On-field review or VAR-only review
In an on-field review (OFR), the referee makes the TV-screen signal and watches replay footage at the referee review area before deciding whether to keep or change the original ruling.
A VAR-only review is different: the referee can decide from information provided by video officials rather than personally watching the screen. This is particularly suitable for factual questions such as location or position. Subjective issues — for example, the intensity of a challenge or handball interpretation — usually call for an on-field review.
Neither route makes the VAR the final decision-maker. The referee remains responsible for the outcome and must communicate the decision.
Why does a VAR check take time?
Different cameras may show different details, the referee and video team may need to distinguish what happened first, and a possible offside can require identifying the exact moment of a pass. When available, semi-automated offside systems help with positional analysis but still require the relevant checks.
IFAB’s VAR protocol sets no fixed upper time limit for a review, prioritising an accurate final decision. That does not mean every delay is ideal for the viewing experience: the speed and transparency of communication are legitimate parts of the wider debate.
Questions supporters ask
Is “check complete” a decision?
It signals that the check is finished without an intervention. The referee’s on-field decision stands.
Does VAR always send the referee to the screen?
No. Factual reviews can be handled without a monitor visit when appropriate.
Who decides to change the call?
The referee. VAR supplies evidence and may recommend a review but cannot independently replace the referee’s final decision.
Explore the wider VAR debate
VarVote keeps one permanent, voluntary yes-or-no ballot about the place of VAR in football. It is not representative polling.
See the global VAR question →Primary sources
These sources explain the rules or technologies in their official context. Check competition-specific procedures where appropriate.