Establish the trigger and the authority
Start with the current competition protocol. It defines which incidents are reviewable, who may initiate the process and which official has final responsibility. A player challenge, an automatic check and an official referral are not interchangeable. Each can impose different timing, eligibility and communication requirements. The presence of a usable camera does not expand the list of permitted reviews.
In association football, The IFAB’s VAR protocol limits intervention to specified categories and conditions. In cricket, the International Cricket Council’s playing conditions distinguish different review and referral mechanisms. Rugby union uses its own Television Match Official arrangements under World Rugby. These examples show why “the video referee” is an incomplete description: the procedural authority comes from the sport’s rules, not from the room containing the screens.
Identify the incident before opening the evidence
Describe the original call and the possible error in neutral language. A narrow factual question can often be answered differently from a question about the quality of a challenge. Identify the relevant phase of play where the protocol requires it, and avoid selecting only the instant that supports an early impression. Context should be assembled deliberately, not added only when the first image proves inconvenient.
The review team needs a consistent incident reference and a reliable sequence of views. Operators should distinguish a live source, a replay, a processed overlay and an estimated reconstruction. Those materials can all be useful, but they do not have the same evidential status. When timing is decisive, confirm that different feeds refer to compatible moments rather than matching them by appearance alone.
Checkpoint: separate the roles
The operator retrieves evidence. The system may produce a measurement or recommendation. The authorised official applies the protocol and law. Some approved systems have a defined direct indication role, but that role remains limited by the competition’s rules.
Review at the speed the question requires
Slow motion can reveal where contact occurred or whether a ball touched a line. Normal speed can be essential when evaluating the dynamics of a challenge. A sequence that appears deliberate when repeated slowly may have developed in a fraction of a second. Select playback speed to answer the question, and acknowledge where a particular presentation can distort the viewer’s impression.
Multiple views should test an interpretation rather than simply repeat it. If one view suggests a gap and another suggests contact, examine perspective, obstruction and timing before treating the disagreement as evidence of a malfunction. A broadcast audience may not see every feed available to officials. Equally, the existence of additional feeds should not be used to claim that a disputed decision must have been correct.
Apply the required decision threshold
Different reviews ask different questions about the existing decision. Some factual processes establish a specified condition; other protocols require a defined level of error before intervention. Football’s “clear and obvious error” language should not be treated as a universal threshold across sports. Cricket’s treatment of an umpire’s call in relevant DRS decisions likewise belongs to a particular framework, not a general rule for uncertain technology.
If evidence remains inconclusive, apply the stated fallback. Do not replace a procedural threshold with the operator’s confidence or the most persuasive television graphic. It is possible for a careful review to leave the original decision unchanged without establishing that decision as an independently proven fact. Communicating that distinction is more honest than describing every retained call as technologically confirmed.
| Assistance can provide | The authorised process must determine |
|---|---|
| A replay, event flag or estimated position. | Whether the incident is eligible for review. |
| A comparison with a defined geometric boundary. | Whether any separate interpretive offence occurred. |
| An indication that a source is unavailable. | Which approved fallback and restart procedure applies. |
Close the decision loop
Once the authorised decision is made, it must reach the field in unambiguous language. Confirm the outcome, any disciplinary consequence and the correct restart where relevant. Public announcements can improve understanding, but should state what was decided rather than imply a broader certainty than the evidence supports. A concise reason is often more useful than a technical label without explanation.
After the event, maintain an appropriate record of the incident, available sources, significant technical limitations and outcome. Such records help identify recurring process problems without turning every disagreement into a claim of equipment failure. A useful audit asks whether the review followed its approved sequence and whether evidence was interpreted within its scope. It does not judge system quality solely by whether supporters preferred the final call.
Primary reading
- The IFAB: VAR protocol
- ICC: playing conditions
- World Rugby: laws of the game
- FIBA: official basketball rules
This guide is not an instruction to officials and does not replace current competition documents.