Two separate debates

VAR controversies often blur two different questions:

1. Did VAR find the right answer under the law?
2. Is the law itself the right standard?

The first is a technical question. The second is a philosophical one. Most public anger about VAR is about the second, but is expressed as if it is about the first.

A 2cm offside disallowing a goal is a correct application of the law. The frustration is not that VAR got it wrong — it is that the law treats 2cm and 2 metres the same way.

What VAR was scoped to do

VAR was introduced to fix four specific kinds of errors:

• Wrong calls on goals (or pre-goal incidents like offside)
• Penalty decisions
• Direct red card incidents
• Mistaken identity

The protocol uses the phrase "clear and obvious error" — a high bar. VAR is not supposed to re-referee every close call. It is supposed to step in only when the original decision is plainly wrong.

In practice, this threshold has shifted. What counts as "clear and obvious" varies between competitions and over time. Each tournament cycle adjusts where the line sits.

Why the experience feels worse than the data

Even when VAR is correct most of the time, the experience is uneven:

• Goals are scored, celebrated, then disallowed
• Reviews can take minutes
• The crowd watches the referee at a screen with no audio
• Replay can make small contact look enormous

These are emotional costs that statistics cannot capture. A perfectly correct VAR decision can still feel like an insult to the game.

The millimetre problem

Modern technology measures offside to the millimetre. The Laws of the Game were not written with millimetre accuracy in mind — they were written for the naked eye, where "in line" meant within human perception.

Semi-automated offside technology, used at the 2022 World Cup and now in major leagues, removes the human margin entirely. A toe, an armpit, a shoulder — all are precisely measured.

This forces a question IFAB has not yet answered: should the law require a meaningful advantage to be offside, or should the line stay at zero?

Trial proposals

Some changes have been discussed:

• Daylight rule — only offside if there is clear daylight between the attacker and the last defender
• Whole-body rule — only offside if the entire body is ahead of the last defender
• Margin tolerance — accept anything within a small measurement margin as not offside

None has been adopted into the Laws as of 2026/27. The debate continues.

What VAR actually changed

VAR did not introduce errors. It made existing errors visible and reviewable. Before VAR, missed calls happened all the time — they just disappeared into the flow of the match.

VAR made every close call into a public negotiation. That is a structural shift, not just a procedural one.

Where the protocol is heading

IFAB has trialled limited VAR use for second yellow cards, mistaken identity in penalties, and clearly incorrect corner decisions as competition options. These are gradual expansions, not radical overhauls.

The protocol is also moving toward transparency — referees explaining decisions over PA systems, in-stadium replay synced to broadcast feeds, and faster review workflows. None solves the fundamental tension, but each can soften the experience.