Myth: VAR's Job is to Get Every Call Right
The biggest misconception about VAR is that it was designed to create a perfectly officiated game. Fans and pundits often rage, "How could VAR not fix that?" when a seemingly incorrect corner kick is given or a soft free-kick is awarded. The assumption
is that if a mistake exists, VAR is there to correct it, turning the referee into a mere on-field administrator for a central command center. This belief fuels endless frustration, as it sets an impossible standard that the system was never intended to meet.
Fact: VAR Only Intervenes for 'Clear and Obvious Errors'
The official protocol is the key to understanding VAR's role. The technology is not there to re-referee the match. Its purpose is to act as a safety net for major, undeniable mistakes. The official mantra from The IFAB (the sport's rule-making body) is that VAR should only intervene for a "clear and obvious error" or a "serious missed incident." This means that for the vast majority of subjective calls—the 50/50 tackles, the jostling in the box—the decision made by the on-field referee stands. If the video footage is ambiguous or open to interpretation, the original call is upheld. The goal is "minimum interference, maximum benefit," not flawless perfection.
Myth: VAR Can Review Any Play at Any Time
Unlike the NFL's challenge flag system, a soccer coach can't throw a fit on the sideline to demand a VAR review for a play they dislike. Many viewers assume that any controversial moment can be put under the microscope, leading to confusion when, for example, a contentious throw-in that leads to a goal isn't looked at. This misunderstanding stems from a belief that VAR has an open mandate to police the entire game. The reality is far more restricted, which can be maddening for those who feel a major injustice has occurred just outside VAR's purview.
Fact: VAR's Scope Is Limited to Four Key Incidents
VAR's power is actually quite narrow. It can only be used to review four specific, game-changing situations:
1. Goals: Checking for offside, fouls, or the ball going out of play in the attacking phase.
2. Penalty Decisions: Whether a penalty should or should not have been awarded.
3. Direct Red Card Incidents: Reviewing fouls for serious foul play, violent conduct, or denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (but not second yellow cards).
4. Mistaken Identity: Ensuring the correct player is booked or sent off.
That's it. Anything outside of these four categories—like a routine foul in midfield or an incorrect corner decision—is beyond its jurisdiction, no matter how wrong the call might seem.
Myth: The Technology Removes All Subjectivity
The introduction of cameras, slow-motion replays, and semi-automated offside lines gives the impression of pure, objective truth. It feels like science. If you can see the contact in super slow-mo or draw a line to show a player is offside by a millimeter, the argument seems to be over. This leads to the expectation that every VAR decision should be a black-and-white, emotionless judgment based on indisputable video evidence. But technology doesn't see; it only shows. Humans still have to interpret what is being shown.
Fact: Human Interpretation Remains Central to the Process
Except for factual decisions like offside calls, VAR is still a tool wielded by human beings. An official in a remote room must still decide if a defender's arm was in an "unnatural position" for a handball, or if a high tackle was merely reckless (a yellow card) versus using excessive force (a red card). Slow-motion replay can even distort reality, making incidental contact look like a violent assault. Different referees can watch the exact same clip and come to different conclusions. VAR removes the error of not seeing an incident, but it doesn't remove the subjectivity of judging it.
