Goal or no goal
Offside, handball, fouls or the ball going out of play in the attacking phase can all matter if they lead to a goal.
The basics
What is VAR?
Video Assistant Referee is not a separate referee with the power to run a match from a screen. It is a support system. A video match official watches the same game, has access to replay angles and can assist when a match-changing decision may contain a clear and obvious error or when a serious incident has been missed.
The distinction matters. The referee on the field still makes the original decision and remains responsible for the final one. VAR can recommend a review, provide factual information or tell the referee that the check is complete. It is not meant to revisit every foul, throw-in or booking simply because a replay is available.
That principle is written into the IFAB VAR protocol: the original decision should only change when the evidence shows the required level of error. Most incidents are checked without the game turning into a visible review.
The short version
VAR is a second set of eyes for a narrow group of important decisions. The referee still owns the decision.
The scope
What can VAR actually review?
The familiar shorthand is “four situations”: goals, penalties, red cards and mistaken identity. That remains the easiest way to understand VAR, although the protocol has since been extended in a couple of important ways.
Penalty or no penalty
VAR can check whether an offence happened, whether it happened inside the area and whether a penalty was wrongly awarded or missed.
Sending-off situations
Direct red-card incidents are reviewable. A clearly incorrect second yellow can also be corrected when it has resulted in a red card.
Mistaken identity
If the wrong player is sanctioned, VAR can help correct the identity of the offender.
There is an important limit to the second-yellow provision. VAR cannot search for a second yellow that the referee failed to give. It can intervene only when a second yellow was actually shown, caused a dismissal and was clearly wrong. IFAB states this explicitly in its protocol.
IFAB has also made it possible for competitions to allow VAR to correct a clearly incorrect corner award, provided the correction can be made immediately without delaying the restart. That is an option, not a universal requirement. This is one of the reasons VAR no longer looks identical from one competition to another.
Inside the process
A check is not the same thing as a review
Every reviewable incident can be checked in the video operation room. Many of those checks are silent and end with no intervention. Viewers usually notice the process only when the check takes time or the referee is advised that something may be wrong.
When the issue is factual — an offside line, the location of a foul, whether the ball went out — the referee can often act on information from the VAR. Subjective questions are different. Was the contact enough for a penalty? Was a tackle serious foul play? Did a player deliberately make the body unnaturally bigger with the arm? Those decisions normally leave room for judgement, even after six camera angles.
An on-field review gives the referee another look on the pitchside monitor. It does not transfer the decision to the VAR. IFAB is clear that the referee is the only official who can make the final decision.
Why slow motion can mislead: IFAB advises that normal speed should generally be used when judging the intensity of an offence, while slow motion is more useful for factual details such as point of contact or position. A replay can show more, but it can also change how an incident feels.
How we got here
VAR went from experiment to normality remarkably quickly
Football spent decades treating the referee’s view as final even when television viewers could see that a major decision was wrong. Goal-line technology began to soften that resistance. VAR went much further: it brought replay directly into the decision-making process.
The live experiment becomes real
FIFA conducted its first official “semi-live” VAR test during Italy v France in Bari on 1 September 2016. The system was still experimental, but the basic idea was already familiar: intervene only for clear errors in match-changing situations.
Early domestic adopters
Germany and Italy were among the major leagues using VAR before it entered the Laws permanently. The Bundesliga used it from the opening game of the 2017/18 season.
The World Cup changes the scale
The 2018 World Cup in Russia was the first men’s World Cup played with VAR throughout the tournament. In the same period, VAR was formally incorporated into the Laws of the Game for 2018/19.
Spain and France join
LaLiga and Ligue 1 introduced VAR for the 2018/19 season.
UEFA and the Premier League
VAR appeared in the Champions League knockout phase in February 2019 and was introduced across the Premier League from the 2019/20 season.
Norway adopts VAR
VAR entered the Eliteserien in 2023. Sweden, by contrast, has remained one of Europe’s notable top-flight holdouts after organised club opposition to its introduction.
Faster offsides, more explanation
Semi-automated offside systems, referee announcements and improved in-stadium communication became increasingly central to the effort to make VAR quicker and easier to understand.
Same protocol, different football cultures
Do all leagues use VAR the same way?
No. The core protocol comes from IFAB, so a domestic league cannot simply invent its own version of VAR. But the practical experience can differ a great deal. Competitions set operating policies, choose whether to adopt optional extensions, decide how they communicate reviews and invest in different technology.
| Competition | VAR introduced | What stands out | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premier League | 2019/20 | High intervention threshold; semi-automated offside technology; referee announcements and stronger in-stadium communication. | Clearly wrong second-yellow dismissals can be corrected. The league has chosen not to use the optional VAR review for incorrectly awarded corners. |
| Bundesliga | 2017/18 | One of the earliest major-league adopters; semi-automated offside and referee communication were added as the system developed. | Clearly wrong second-yellow dismissals can be corrected. German football has also chosen not to use the optional VAR review for corner decisions. |
| LaLiga | 2018/19 | VAR was introduced league-wide after a formal training and implementation programme with the Spanish federation. | Operates under the IFAB framework, with video officials supporting goals, penalties, sending-offs and identity decisions. |
| Serie A | 2017/18 | Italy was an early adopter and has built VAR operations into the league’s broadcast and refereeing infrastructure. | VAR remains established across the top flight, alongside newer offside technology. |
| Ligue 1 | 2018/19 | French refereeing authorities have increasingly used post-match explanation and VAR audio for education and transparency. | The FFF has published detailed performance data alongside its explanations of how VAR is applied. |
| Eliteserien | 2023 | Norway introduced VAR as a full top-flight refereeing project after several years of preparation and debate. | VAR remains part of the top-flight competition rules, despite a long-running domestic debate about its future. |
| Allsvenskan | Not introduced | Swedish elite clubs have been unusually resistant to VAR, with club democracy playing an important role in the debate. | Sweden remains the clearest major European example of a top league choosing not to follow the wider adoption trend. |
That comparison is useful because it separates two debates that are often mixed together. One is whether football should have video review at all. The other is how a competition should operate it. Two leagues can both use VAR and still make different choices about thresholds, corners, offside technology and communication.
Premier League
The Premier League has kept a deliberately narrow approach
The VAR protocol was expanded for 2026/27 to cover a narrow second-yellow situation. It allows VAR to intervene when a player is shown a second yellow, is therefore sent off, and the booking is clearly wrong. A possible second yellow that the referee never gave remains outside VAR’s reach.
The league has chosen not to use IFAB’s optional power to review clearly incorrect corner awards. That fits its stated preference for a high intervention threshold and avoiding extra stoppages. In its 2026 Football Survey, 65% of respondents wanted the existing VAR intervention threshold maintained, while 43% supported expanding VAR to more incidents and 37% supported intervention on incorrect corners.
Speed and communication have become bigger priorities than simply widening VAR’s remit. Semi-automated offside technology was introduced during the 2024/25 season and the league later reported that it saved an average of 27 seconds per offside event. Referee announcements and big-screen explanations have also become part of the effort to make the process easier to follow inside the stadium.
The public argument
Do supporters actually want VAR?
There is no single number that settles this. Surveys ask different people different questions, and the result changes depending on whether the choice is “keep or scrap VAR” or “keep it, but change it”. That difference is important.
The Football Supporters’ Association surveyed almost 8,000 Premier League fans in 2026. In that sample, 75.7% said they did not support the use of VAR in football and 91.7% said it had taken away the spontaneous joy of celebrating goals. Only 3.3% said the matchgoing experience was better with VAR.
75.7%said “No” when the FSA asked whether they supported the use of VAR in football.
91.7%said VAR had removed spontaneity from goal celebrations in the FSA survey.
68%of Premier League fans in a separate YouGov poll preferred keeping VAR but changing how it works.
A YouGov poll published two months later painted a less binary picture. It still found deep dissatisfaction: 59% thought VAR had worked badly in the Premier League and 72% of regular viewers said it had made matches less enjoyable. Yet only 18% wanted it removed entirely. The largest group — 68% — wanted VAR to stay with changes to the way it is used.
Those results are not contradictory. They reflect how much wording, sample and matchgoing experience matter. A supporter can dislike VAR as it currently operates and still be reluctant to return to a game where an obvious television replay cannot correct a decisive mistake.
There is also a striking contrast with goal-line technology. In the FSA’s 2026 survey, 93% supported keeping it. The attraction is obvious: the answer is almost instant, factual and easy to understand. VAR becomes more controversial when the question is not “did the ball cross the line?” but “was that contact enough?”
What do you think about VAR?
VAR continues to divide football supporters. Explore a current VarVote debate and add your view.
Explore football opinion votesWhy the debate survives
The strongest case for VAR — and the strongest case against it
The case for VAR
- It can correct a major mistake before it becomes permanent. A referee gets one real-time angle; the video team can inspect several.
- Factual decisions are better supported. Offside technology can resolve margins that are almost impossible for an assistant referee to judge live.
- The stakes justify a second look. A wrong penalty or red card can decide a title, relegation or knockout tie.
- It creates a route to accountability. Important decisions can be reviewed and later explained rather than simply disappearing into “the referee saw it differently”.
The case against VAR
- It has changed the emotional rhythm of the game. Supporters can no longer be certain a goal is a goal when the ball hits the net.
- Subjective calls remain subjective. More angles do not create a mathematical answer to every handball, tackle or penalty.
- The threshold can feel inconsistent. Fans struggle when two similar incidents produce different levels of intervention.
- Precision has a cost. A technically correct decision can still feel disproportionate when the review takes too long or turns on a tiny margin.
The interesting part is that both sides are often arguing from something true. VAR does correct decisions. It also interrupts moments that used to be immediate. The disagreement is over which cost football should be more willing to accept.
The limits
Technology cannot remove judgement from football
Some arguments about VAR are really arguments about the Laws of the Game. Handball is the clearest example. A better camera cannot make a subjective law objective. It can show the arm position more clearly, but somebody still has to decide whether that position should be punished under the law.
The same is true of physical contact. Slow motion can establish that a boot touched an ankle. It cannot automatically tell us whether the contact was careless, reckless, serious foul play or simply part of a challenge that football wants referees to allow.
VAR also cannot guarantee consistency in the way supporters mean it. Football incidents are rarely identical, referees still interpret them and the protocol intentionally sets a threshold before video intervention. A system can therefore be operating as designed and still leave two sets of supporters convinced they have been treated differently.
A useful distinction: “VAR got involved” and “the final decision was correct” are not the same question. VarVote treats the incident itself as the thing worth judging.
What comes next
The future of VAR looks less like more cameras and more like better decisions around them
The technology is already good enough to provide a huge amount of information. The next phase is about reducing the time between information and decision, and making the process less mysterious to the people watching.
Semi-automated offside technology is part of that. So are referee announcements, better stadium graphics and more public explanation. FIFA also recognises a lighter form called VAR Light for competitions that cannot support a full high-end system.
At the same time, football is experimenting with alternatives. Limited challenge systems and video-support models shift some control away from constant background checking and towards a small number of team-requested reviews. That may appeal to people who accept video assistance but dislike the feeling that every big moment is under permanent surveillance.
What is unlikely to disappear is the basic tension. Football wants correct decisions, fast decisions, consistent decisions and uninterrupted emotion. VAR has shown that getting all four at once is much harder than it sounds.
From explanation to real incidents
See how supporters judge VAR when it actually happens
Rules are easier to discuss in the abstract. VarVote also tracks individual decisions, where the wording of the law meets a real tackle, offside line, handball or penalty.
The bigger question
Beyond individual incidents, VarVote keeps one permanent global ballot on VAR itself.
Vote in the global VAR ballotFAQ
Common VAR questions
What decisions can VAR review?
VAR is used for match-changing incidents involving goals, penalties, sending-off situations and mistaken identity. The current protocol also allows a clearly incorrect second yellow to be corrected when that booking causes a sending-off. Competitions may choose to allow immediate correction of clearly incorrect corner awards.
Can VAR review a second yellow card?
Yes, but only when a second yellow has actually been shown, causes a red card and is clearly incorrect. VAR cannot intervene simply because the referee missed a possible second-yellow offence.
Can the VAR overrule the referee?
The referee remains the final decision-maker. The VAR can recommend a review and provide information, but the referee owns the final decision.
Why does the referee sometimes go to the monitor and sometimes not?
Subjective decisions are normally suited to an on-field review. Factual matters such as offside position or whether an offence occurred inside or outside the penalty area can often be handled through factual information from the VAR.
Does every league have to review corners?
No. IFAB made clearly incorrect corner awards an optional competition extension. Competitions decide whether to adopt it; the Premier League and Bundesliga have chosen not to use it.
Is semi-automated offside fully automated?
No. The technology speeds up the identification of the kick point and offside line, but the VAR still validates the output and the relevant players before the decision is confirmed.
Sources
Where the information comes from
This page is written as a practical explanation, not as a substitute for the Laws of the Game. For the rules themselves, IFAB is the primary source. League-specific sections use information published by the relevant competition or national association. Survey figures are kept separate because their samples and questions differ.
- IFAB — Video Assistant Referee protocol
- IFAB — 2026/27 Law changes
- FIFA — VAR technology and implementation
- FIFA — first official semi-live VAR test
- Premier League — Football Principles for 2026/27
- Premier League — semi-automated offside technology
- Bundesliga — VAR and rule changes
- LaLiga — VAR introduction
- FIGC — VAR debut in Serie A 2017/18
- FFF — VAR in French refereeing
- NFF — Eliteserien 2026 competition rules
- Swedish Professional Football Leagues — VAR position
- Football Supporters’ Association — 2026 VAR survey
- YouGov — Premier League VAR polling, May 2026