Watching a replay makes a football decision feel immediate. Video officials may be checking a different question from the one that first catches your eye. IFAB's VAR protocol defines when video assistance can intervene and how the referee reaches a final decision. This guide describes the 2026/27 protocol. Check the competition's current implementation too, because an optional part of the protocol does not apply automatically in every competition.
The current protocol identifies five categories, with the fifth optional: goal or no goal, penalty or no penalty, red cards including a clearly incorrect second caution, mistaken identity when a player is cautioned or sent off, and a clearly incorrectly awarded corner kick. The corner option requires immediate correction without delaying the restart. VAR is therefore not a general mechanism for reconsidering every foul, caution, or disputed restart.
A VAR intervention concerns a potential clear and obvious error or serious missed incident. The referee normally makes an original decision first; allowing play to continue counts as a decision. Video assistance may establish that a player was outside the penalty area or that the ball had gone out of play. Goal and penalty assessments can also involve relevant attacking offences in the build-up, which expands what officials need to examine.
A check and a formal review are different stages. Officials can check an incident and find no qualifying error, often through a silent check that does not lead to a monitor visit. Only the referee can initiate the formal review; VAR recommends it. The referee always makes the final decision, either using information from VAR or conducting an on-field review. A long pause alone does not tell viewers which stage is taking place.
Factual questions such as player position, the location of an offence, or whether the ball crossed a boundary are usually suitable for a VAR-only review. Subjective judgments, including foul intensity or interference at offside, are appropriate for an on-field review. Different speeds also serve different purposes: slow motion generally helps establish facts, while normal speed helps assess intensity. Several angles can be necessary before officials understand the same contact clearly.
The protocol sets no maximum time limit for the overall review process and prioritises accuracy, while expecting reviews to be completed efficiently. That general principle does not override the requirement for an immediate, non-delaying corner correction where that option is used. A review may require locating the relevant attacking phase, synchronising perspectives, or resolving a factual question before the referee assesses its significance.
Two details matter when discussing the newer rules. A clearly wrong second caution that led to dismissal can be reviewed, but a missed potential second-yellow offence cannot simply be reviewed to award that second caution. Mistaken-identity checks identify the offender; they do not create a general right to review the merits of every yellow card. To understand a disputed check, first identify the applicable category, the original decision, and the specific error the officials were considering.
Go to the sources
Our editorial standards explain how sources and automated briefings are handled.