What scenario are you checking VAR's decision on?
Every question in this scenario
The VAR protocol investigation scenario asks 18 questions and can reach 33 decisions. A walk answers only the ones its own answers lead to. This is the whole set, for reference and for revision.
1What scenario are you checking VAR's decision on?
The protocol governs whether VAR may look at something, how the look is carried out, and what follows when the technology fails.
Answers: Should VAR have reviewed this incident at all? · Mistaken identity: was the correct player carded? · An offence or encroachment at a penalty kick · Corner kick: can VAR change the call? · Technology or the review process itself is what failed · How the review was carried out, and who may ask for one
2Which of the reviewable categories is the incident in?
An error outside these five is not reviewable however clear it is, which is why this comes before the clear and obvious error question rather than after it.
Answers: A goal, or a goal not given · A penalty kick, or a penalty not given · A direct red card, or one not given · The wrong player was cautioned or sent off · None of those
3Was it a clear and obvious error, or a serious incident the referee missed entirely?
A close call that could go either way on replay does not reach the threshold, however many people disagree with it.
Answers: Yes · No
4Is the offence itself confirmed, and did the referee simply card the wrong player for it?
Only the identity of the offender is in question here. The offence itself is taken as established.
Answers: Yes · No
5Had the restart already been taken and the ball returned to active play?
The card can still be moved to the right player either way. The restart is the thing that may no longer be revisited.
Answers: Yes · No
6Was a corner kick awarded that clearly should not have been?
The category is a corner given that should not have been. A corner that was missed is not in it.
Answers: Yes · No
7Has the competition adopted this review, and can it still be corrected without delay?
Both have to be true. If the corner kick has already been taken, the decision cannot be changed.
Answers: Yes · No
8What is being questioned about the technology or the review process?
Where technology is in use, the protocol's match validity section deals with what follows when it fails.
Answers: Not in use: this competition had no such technology · Malfunctioned, or produced no output · No review: the referee or VAR chose not to review it · Reviewed something outside the five categories · The VAR, AVAR or replay operator could not start or continue
9Is the disputed point a fact, such as whether the whole ball crossed the goal line?
Facts connected with play are settled by the referee and stay settled. Matters of opinion are not.
Answers: Yes · No
10Were the match officials themselves left without the information?
Answer no if the officials had it and only the screen for spectators and broadcasters failed.
Answers: Yes · No
11Which part of the review process is in question?
The protocol prints its procedures in the order they happen: the original decision, the review, and what the referee does at the end of it.
Answers: Before the review: what the officials must do first · The review itself: the monitor, and how far back it goes · After the review: the signal, the cards and the restart · Whether it was too late, because play had restarted · The two places: the monitor and the replay room
12What happened before the review?
The referee and the other match officials must always make an initial decision, including any disciplinary action, as if there was no VAR, except for an incident they missed.
Answers: The referee gave no decision and left it to the VAR · The assistant referee kept the flag down · How play was stopped for the check or the review
13Was it a very clear attacking situation, with a player about to score or clean through?
Delaying the flag is not a general licence to let VAR sort it out later. The protocol permits it in one situation and describes that situation narrowly.
Answers: Yes · No
14Had play already stopped when the check or review began?
The protocol splits here, and the split is what a viewer sees as either a long delay before a restart or the referee blowing up in a strange place a few seconds later.
Answers: Yes · No
15What about the review itself is in question?
The final decision is always the referee's, whether it rests on the VAR's description alone or on the referee's own look at the footage.
Answers: Why the referee did or did not go to the monitor · Who may start a review, and whether anyone can ask for one · How far back into the move the review may go · What the VAR is working with, and who chooses the replay
16Was it a judgement call, such as the intensity of a challenge or a handball consideration?
The protocol sorts reviews by what kind of judgement is being made, not by how big the decision is.
Answers: Yes · No
17What happened after the review?
Three things close the process: the signal, the cards already given, and what the players may do meanwhile.
Answers: The signal, the time it took, and the restart · Cards given between the incident and the review · Players or team officials crowding the referee
18Is it mistaken identity, or a sending-off for violent conduct, spitting or biting?
Extremely offensive, insulting or abusive actions are in the second limb too. Everything else is closed.
Answers: Yes · No
Every decision it can reach
Each one is where a walk ends, with the reasoning it prints. The clause behind a decision is cited on the decision itself, which you reach by walking to it.
VAR intervention was correct: clear and obvious error
The incident met the threshold for VAR intervention. A clear and obvious error occurred, or a serious incident was missed. VAR's role is limited to those situations across five categories: goal/no goal, penalty/no penalty, red card, mistaken identity, and a clearly incorrectly awarded corner kick where the competition has adopted that option.
No intervention: threshold not met
The incident did not meet the threshold for VAR intervention. The on-field decision was a borderline judgment call, not a clear and obvious error. The referee's original decision is not changed unless the video review clearly shows such an error.
Card can still be moved, but the restart stands
Using the mistaken identity protocol was correct, and it is expressly available even after play has restarted, so the card is transferred to the player who actually committed the offence. What cannot follow is a fresh restart matching the original call, because the Laws do not allow restart decisions to be changed once play has restarted. If the referee stopped play to carry out the review, a dropped ball is the restart, since the Law does not require any other restart in this situation.
Mistaken identity protocol correctly applied
The offence was confirmed, the referee sanctioned the wrong player, and VAR intervened before the restart was taken and play resumed. Only the identity of the offender was reviewed, the card was moved to the player who committed the offence, and the restart reflected the corrected decision.
Mistaken identity protocol does not apply here
This category applies where the referee penalises an offence but has clearly misidentified the player who committed it. Only the identity of the offender can be reviewed under it. If the dispute is about whether an offence occurred at all, or about upgrading or downgrading a card, this is not a mistaken identity case. The incident may still be reviewable in its own right if it relates to a goal, a penalty incident or a direct red card.
Not reviewable: outside the categories
A VAR may assist the referee only in the event of a clear and obvious error or a serious missed incident, and only in relation to a goal or no goal, a penalty kick or no penalty kick, a direct red card, or mistaken identity in cautioning or sending off the wrong player. An incident outside those, a free kick given the wrong way, a throw-in, or a caution that is not a clearly incorrect second one, is not reviewable however clearly the replay shows the referee was wrong. The one thing beside them is a competition option to change a clearly incorrectly awarded corner kick, and only where that can be done immediately and without delaying the restart, which this tree walks from its own first question.
This is a Law 14 question, not a VAR one
Whether a penalty kick must be retaken, and who is penalised for encroaching, is decided by Law 14 on its own. VAR only checks whether the referee's decision was clearly wrong. What comes next is who offended before the ball was in play and what the kick produced.
Continues in the law 14 penalty scenario.
Reviewable: a clearly incorrect corner can be corrected here
A corner kick was clearly incorrectly awarded, the competition has adopted this optional review, and the decision can be corrected immediately without delaying the restart. Those conditions together are what make it reviewable. This category was added for 2026/27.
Not correctable: competition option unavailable or the moment has passed
The corner was clearly incorrectly awarded, but the correction is not available. Either the competition has not adopted this optional review, or the decision could no longer be changed immediately and without delaying the restart. If the corner kick is taken quickly, the decision cannot be changed. This is why the same error can be correctable in one competition and not in another.
Not reviewable: no incorrectly awarded corner to correct
The reviewable category covers a corner kick that was clearly incorrectly awarded. It does not cover the opposite case, where a corner should have been given and was missed. That decision is a restart decision, and the Laws do not allow restart decisions such as corner kicks and throw-ins to be changed once play has restarted, so they cannot be reviewed. If the ball crossed the goal line for a goal, that is a separate matter reviewable under goal/no goal.
The decision is final: the competition was not using the technology
The disputed point is a fact connected with play, and the technology that settles it was not in use. Law 5 lets competitions use goal line technology, and VARs where the organiser has met every implementation requirement in the VAR Handbook and has written permission from FIFA. It does not oblige them to have either, and a competition without that permission is not entitled to use VARs at all. With neither available, the only account of the fact is the one the match officials gave at the time, and the referee's decisions on facts connected with play, including whether a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. An error of this kind stands, and the Laws provide no route back to it. What goal line technology could have settled is narrow in any case: Law 1 has it verifying whether a goal has been scored and nothing else, it applies solely to the goal line, its use must be stipulated in the competition rules, and where it is used the organiser must meet the FIFA Quality Programme requirements for it.
Technology would not have settled this in any case
Law 5 allows technology for three things: the VAR protocol, ball in and out of play including goal line technology, and offside including semi-automated offside technology. This decision is none of them. It rests on the opinion of the referee, made to the best of their ability according to the Laws and the spirit of the game. The technology's absence changes nothing about how it had to be reached.
Officials left without the technology, and the match still stands
The failure left the officials without the assistance the technology exists to give them, so the decision fell back on the referee's own perception and whatever the other officials could add. That may well have produced a worse decision. It does not undo the match: in principle a match is not invalidated by malfunctions of the VAR technology, and the protocol says the same holds for goal line technology. The answer lies with the organiser and the implementation requirements, not with the result. Law 1 puts one duty before kick-off rather than after: where goal line technology is used the referee must test its functionality before the match as set out in the Testing Manual, and if it does not function accordingly the referee must not use it and must report it to the appropriate authorities. In use, the indication must be immediate and automatically confirmed within one second, to the match officials only.
The check stood, and only its presentation failed
The officials got the information. What failed was showing it to everyone else. Semi-automated offside technology is defined by what it sends to the video assistant referee and, in an advanced version, the assistant referees, and the Laws say nothing about publishing that output to spectators or broadcasters. The one thing the protocol says about public explanation is that competitions may implement it, another option rather than a requirement. So this is a real failure of transparency and not a breach of the Laws, and in principle a match is not invalidated by a malfunction. One caveat: this rests on the check itself having been completed, which is exactly what a missing graphic leaves nobody outside the video operation room able to confirm.
A decision not to review does not invalidate the match
The VAR automatically checks every potential or actual goal, penalty or direct red card, and a check showing no clear and obvious error usually ends there as a silent check. Where that judgment was itself wrong, the incident goes uncorrected, and the protocol accepts it: in principle a match is not invalidated by decisions not to review an incident, or by wrong decisions involving the VAR, who is a match official. Whether the threshold was met in the first place is a separate question, asked under this tree's first branch.
Reviewing something outside the categories does not invalidate the match
The referee may receive assistance from the VAR only in relation to five categories, so reviewing anything else falls outside the protocol. That is a procedural error, not a ground for undoing the match: in principle a match is not invalidated by reviews of a non-reviewable situation. Restart decisions are the common case, since the Laws do not allow corner kicks and throw-ins to be changed once play has restarted, so they cannot be reviewed at all.
Only a qualified replacement, or the match goes on without VARs
Law 6 requires competition rules to state clearly who replaces a match official who cannot start or continue, and the protocol adds the principles a competition must include for the video match officials, because the role needs its own training and qualifications. A VAR, AVAR or replay operator who cannot start or continue may only be replaced by someone qualified for that role. If no qualified replacement can be found for the VAR or the replay operator, the match must be played or continue without the use of VARs. The same applies to the AVAR, unless in exceptional circumstances the competition allows otherwise. None of this applies where there is more than one AVAR or replay operator, since the role is already covered.
Not permitted: the referee must make a decision first
The referee is not permitted to give no decision and then use the VAR to make the decision. The protocol gives the reason in its own words: it leads to weak and indecisive officiating, too many reviews, and significant problems if the technology fails. A decision to allow play to continue after an alleged offence is itself a decision, and can be reviewed like any other.
The flag could be delayed, and then it must go up
Delaying the flag is only permissible in a very clear attacking situation when a player is about to score or has a clear run into or towards the opponents' penalty area, and this was one. The second half of the rule is the part that gets forgotten: the assistant referee must raise the flag once the attacking team scores, is awarded a penalty kick, free kick, corner kick or throw-in, or retains possession after the initial attack has ended. In any other situation it is the assistant referee's judgement whether to raise it.
The flag should have gone up: this was not the situation the protocol allows
Delaying the flag for an offence is only permissible in a very clear attacking situation when a player is about to score a goal or has a clear run into or towards the opponents' penalty area. A build-up in midfield, or an attack that is merely promising, is not that, so the offence should have been flagged when it was seen.
The restart is delayed, and the referee shows it
Where play has already stopped, the referee delays the restart. If the restart needs to be delayed for a check, the referee signals it by clearly holding a finger to the earpiece or headset and extending the other hand or arm, and maintains that signal until the check is complete, because it announces that information is being received.
Play is stopped in a neutral zone, not the moment the check begins
Where play has not already stopped, the referee stops it when the ball is next in a neutral zone or situation, usually when neither team is in an attacking move, and shows the TV signal. That is why a review of an incident at one end can be signalled several passes later at the other.
On-field review: the judgement was a subjective one
For subjective decisions, such as the intensity of a foul challenge, interference at offside or handball considerations, an on-field review is appropriate: the referee shows the TV signal, goes to the referee review area and looks at the footage before making a final decision. The other match officials do not review the footage unless the referee asks them to in exceptional circumstances.
VAR-only review: the question was one of fact
For factual decisions, such as the position of an offence or a player, the point of contact, whether an offence was inside or outside the penalty area, or whether the ball was out of play, a VAR-only review is usually appropriate and the referee decides on their own perception plus the VAR's information. An on-field review can still be used for a fact where it helps manage the players or the match, or to sell a crucial match-deciding decision late in the game, so no monitor is not the same as no review.
Only the referee starts a review, and nobody has to ask
Only the referee can initiate a review; the VAR and the other match officials can only recommend one. Where a check indicates a probable clear and obvious error or serious missed incident, the VAR passes that on and the referee decides whether to review, and the referee may also start one on suspecting that something serious has been missed. The final decision is always the referee's, whether it follows an on-field review or the VAR's information. And because the VAR checks every situation automatically, there is no need for coaches or players to request a check or a review at all.
The review can reach back to how the attack started
For decisions relating to goals, penalty or no penalty, and red cards for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, it may be necessary to review the attacking phase of play that led directly to the incident, and that can include how the attacking team gained possession in open play. How far the period of play before and after an incident extends is set by the Laws and by this protocol, which is why a goal can be disallowed for something that happened well before the shot.
The VAR works from broadcast footage, and the referee can ask for more
The VAR watches the match in the video operation room with one or more assistant VARs, and depending on the camera angles there may be more than one AVAR and one or more replay operators. Only authorised persons may enter that room or communicate with them during the match. The VAR has independent access to, and replay control of, the TV broadcast footage, hears everything the match officials say, and can speak to the referee only in defined circumstances, with the AVAR able to speak while the VAR is busy. Where the referee views footage, the VAR selects the best angle and replay speed, and the referee can ask for other angles and speeds.
The TV signal, then the decision, and no clock on either
At the end of both review processes the referee must show the TV signal immediately followed by the final decision, then take, change or rescind any disciplinary action and restart play in accordance with the Laws. The referee must remain visible throughout, to ensure transparency. The review should be as efficient as possible, but the protocol says in terms that accuracy matters more than speed and that there is no maximum time limit, so a long review is not in itself a protocol failure.
Cards given while play continued are not wiped out by the review
If play continues after an incident which is then reviewed, any disciplinary action taken or required during the post-incident period is not cancelled, even if the original decision is changed. The protocol prints one exception: a caution or sending-off for stopping or interfering with a promising attack, or for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
Surrounding the referee is a protocol breach in its own right
The players and team officials must not surround the referee or attempt to influence whether a decision is reviewed, the review process, or the final decision, including when the final decision is communicated. That covers all three separately, so pressing the referee into starting a review is as much a breach as arguing about the answer. During the review the players should remain on the field of play and the substitutes and team officials should remain off it. The protocol prints its own sanctions for two of these: a player, substitute, substituted player or team official who excessively shows the TV signal or enters the referee review area is cautioned, and one who enters the video operation room is sent off.
Still reviewable after the restart: one of the two exceptions
If play has stopped and restarted, the referee may only undertake a review, and take the appropriate disciplinary sanction, for mistaken identity or for a potential sending-off offence relating to violent conduct, spitting, biting or extremely offensive, insulting or abusive actions. This is one of those, so the review is open and the sanction follows it.
Too late: the restart closed it
Once play has stopped and restarted, a review is available only for mistaken identity or for a potential sending-off offence relating to violent conduct, spitting, biting or extremely offensive, insulting or abusive actions. Restart decisions such as corner kicks and throw-ins are a separate and stricter case: the Laws do not allow them to be changed once play has restarted, so they cannot be reviewed at all.
Both are required, both are marked, and walking into either one is a card
Law 1 makes them part of the field's specification rather than an arrangement of the broadcaster's: in matches using VARs there must be a video operation room and at least one referee review area. The video operation room is where the video assistant referee, the assistant VAR and the replay operator work, and it may be in or close to the stadium or somewhere more remote, which is why nobody in the ground can point at it. The referee review area is where the referee carries out an on-field review, and Law 1 puts two conditions on it: it must be in a visible location outside the field of play, and it must be clearly marked. The two sanctions are printed here as well as in Law 12, and they are not the same sanction: a player, substitute, substituted player or team official who enters the referee review area is cautioned, and one who enters the video operation room is sent off.