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.
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.
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.
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 3 March 2018. Operating under the philosophy of "minimal interference, maximum benefit", the VAR system seeks to provide a way for "clear and obvious errors" and "serious missed incidents" to be corrected.
Contents
Procedure
There are four categories of decisions that can be reviewed.
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
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:
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.
On-field review (OFR)
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.
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. 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.
Offences
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.
Location
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. During its 2022 season, Major League Soccer in the United States created a Video Review Center in Atlanta where all its VAR teams operate.
Camera setup
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.
Glossary
A number of technical terms and abbreviations are used in reference to the VAR system. These include:
Check – Process by which the VAR automatically inspects all reviewable decisions. 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.
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.
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".
Offside VAR – AVAR official that anticipates and checks any potential offside situations in game-changing situations.
Support VAR – AVAR official that coordinates communication between VAR officials and focuses on the television programme feed.
History
Before official VAR was developed, the concept of using video for refereeing decisions was arguably pioneered in Yemen. In 2006, former referee Ahmed Qaid Saif consulted a pitchside video monitor to determine the legitimacy of a disputed goal in a match between Al-Tilal and Al-Saqr in Aden. Although this broke conventional rules at the time, it was welcomed by players and the Yemeni FA and stands as one of the earliest known instances of a referee utilizing video tech to make a correct call in a competitive match.
After the previous incident in Yemen, the formalized VAR system was officially developed, used and tested under the International Football Association Board (IFAB)—the body that determines the Laws of the Game—as part of their "Minimise interference, maximise benefit" philosophy. The system was first used in an official match on September 21, 2016, in a Dutch cup match between Ajax and Willem II. It made its debut on the global stage at the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia. The video technology that powers the VAR setup today is largely supplied and patented by companies like Hawk-Eye Innovations (owned by Sony), which operates under licensing agreements with FIFA.
VAR was conceived by the Refereeing 2.0 project in the early 2010s and under the direction of the Royal Netherlands Football Association (KNVB). 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. 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.
Notable uses of VAR
2018 FIFA World Cup
FIFA officially approved the use of VAR for the 2018 FIFA World Cup during the FIFA Council meeting on 16 March 2018 in Bogotá. This tournament became the first competition to use VAR in full (at all matches and in all venues).
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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
2026 FIFA World Cup
In his team's 2–0 victory against Bosnia & Herzegovina in the round of 32, U.S. national team forward Folarin Balogun received a red card following video review of a challenge in which he stepped on Bosnian center back Tarik Muharemović's ankle, despite play being allowed to continue in the moment. As a result, he was suspended and would have had to sit out the team's following round of 16 game against Belgium. On 5 July, FIFA announced it had overturned the suspension.
As in 2018, Croatia faced a controversial VAR decision. In the 103rd minute of their round of 32 contest against Portugal, Croatia's Josko Gvardiol scored an equalizer that was ruled offside after the newly-introduced snickometer system reported contact as the ball traveled near the head of his teammate Igor Matanovic before Gvardiol's goal. With the goal reversed, Portugal won the match 2-1 amid Croatia fans in attendance throwing garbage and yelling expletives at the officiating crew in protest. After the match, Matanovic stated that he thought he "felt a slight contact with [his] hair" and Croatia head coach Zlatko Dalić criticized the decision as "very bad refereeing" and "[taking] the joy out of football." FIFA responded to the controversy by stating that the "IMU sensors housed within the Trionda ball are capable of determining any slight contact" and that the referee's decision was correct.
In the quarterfinal match between Argentina and Switzerland, Argentine midfielder Leandro Paredes received a yellow card for a tackle against Swiss forward Breel Embolo. Under the new "mistaken identity" rule introduced for the tournament to allow decisions made against the wrong party to be overturned, VAR review determined that Embolo's fall was simulated and began before Paredes made contact with him. As a result, the yellow card given to Paredes was rescinded. Embolo, who had already received a yellow card earlier in the match, was ejected from the game after receiving his second yellow card for the simulation. Swiss coach Murat Yakin described the decision as "completely not understandable," and said that the Swiss team had played against "the referee and VAR" in addition to Argentina. On 28 July, the IFAB said that the red card had been given in error, as the Laws of the Game only permitted a mistaken identity review to transfer the penalty to another player, not to rescind the penalty entirely as it was in Paredes' case. A FIFA spokesperson responded that "FIFA's interpretation of Mistaken Identity was consistently applied during the FIFA World Cup," citing a second instance of a similar ruling in a United States v. Paraguay group-stage match. Additionally, they stated it was not a refereeing error, as Embolo's fall being simulated "cannot be disputed" and should not have resulted in Paredes being penalized, and that the decision was "well received" and would be considered in future updates to the VAR rules. The IFAB agreed that the decision was well received and confirmed that VAR review for simulation would be considered in the future, but clarified to referees that it "may not be used as such until that review is concluded."
Issues and criticism
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".
In some instances, VAR has suffered technical difficulties preventing its use. In a 2018 Primeira Liga match between Boavista F.C. and AVS Futebol SAD, a Boavista flag in the stands obscured a VAR camera that would have provided review for an offside call. In the 2018 A-League Grand Final between Newcastle Jets and Melbourne Victory, the VAR software suffered a technical malfunction which prevented the assistant referee from viewing the replay, allowing Melbourne Victory a wrongly awarded goal that won them the A-League Championship.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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", 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. 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. Such bias, including unconscious bias, may not be removed entirely by VAR, as it still relies on human judgment to make the final call. 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.