Who Pushes the Button?
In the NHL, the review process is initiated in a few clear ways. A coach can throw down a challenge flag for things like offside or goalie interference. For other major calls, like determining if a puck crossed the goal line, the review is automatic and
initiated by the league’s central Situation Room in Toronto. It’s a defined, action-based system. Soccer’s Video Assistant Referee (VAR) is completely different. Think of VAR as a constant, silent partner to the on-field referee. A team of officials is watching the broadcast feed for every single match, and they are perpetually “checking” for potential errors on major incidents. There is no coach’s challenge. The players and coaches can’t request a review. The on-field ref can request advice, but most reviews are initiated by the VAR officials themselves, who alert the ref to a possible mistake he may have missed. It’s a proactive system, not a reactive one.
What Can They Even Look At?
This is where much of the confusion lies. NHL replay is fairly specific: Was the play offside before a goal? Was the goalie interfered with? Did the puck cross the line? Was there a high stick on a scoring play? The scope is narrow and rule-based.
VAR can only intervene for four specific, game-changing situations: goals (and any infraction in the buildup), penalty decisions, direct red card incidents, and cases of mistaken identity (e.g., the ref gives a yellow card to the wrong player). That’s it. They can’t check a corner kick decision or a routine foul in the midfield. So while it feels like they can stop the game for anything, the jurisdiction is actually quite limited to those four ‘big’ moments. The problem is that almost everything important that happens in soccer eventually leads to one of those four outcomes.
The Standard for Overturning a Call
This is the most critical difference and the source of most fan frustration. In the NHL (and the NFL), the standard for overturning a call on the ice is typically “conclusive” or “indisputable” video evidence. The replay must show definitively that the initial call was wrong. If the video is ambiguous, the call on the ice stands. It’s a high bar designed to correct only obvious factual errors.
VAR operates on a much more subjective standard: “clear and obvious error.” The VAR isn’t asking, “Was the call 100% wrong?” They are asking, “Was the call something that we, with the benefit of replay, feel is a significant and undeniable mistake?” This introduces a huge gray area. What one official deems a “clear and obvious” error in judgment, another might see as a 50/50 call. This is why you see long debates and outcomes that still feel debatable—the system is correcting perceived judgment errors, not just factual ones.
The Process: Sideline Stroll vs. War Room
When an NHL review happens, the on-ice officials huddle around a tablet at the penalty box while communicating with the Situation Room. The final decision is made by this central authority in Toronto, ensuring consistency across the league. It’s designed for efficiency and centralization.
The VAR process is more decentralized. If the VAR official recommends a review, the on-field referee has two options. For factual decisions like an offside, they can take the VAR’s word for it via their headset. For subjective decisions, like a potential penalty or red card, the ref will trot over to a sideline monitor for an “on-field review.” This is the part that drives fans crazy, as the ref re-watches the play in slow motion from multiple angles. The final decision rests with the on-field referee, not the VAR team, making him the ultimate authority figure.
