How to Read a VAR Announcement: A Six-Part Evidence Card

A short VAR clip may show the referee’s announcement while omitting the incident, the original decision or the review that came before it. Before deciding that an announcement proves a bad call, separate what you heard from what the match record establishes.

This guide uses the IFAB VAR protocol as the authority for the review process. Its current text says that the referee takes the final decision and distinguishes a check from a review. The categories and competition options should be checked against the edition applicable to the match. The worksheet below is Smashology’s viewing method, not an official referee form.

Start with the match and the rule edition

Record the teams, competition, date and match minute. Identify the source of the full clip: broadcaster, competition, club or an account reposting it. A current “latest rules” page may differ from the edition used for an older match. Save the applicable season or edition in your notes rather than assuming every match used today’s wording.

Write down the original on-field decision before interpreting the final announcement. If the clip starts after the review, mark that original decision unknown until you find the earlier footage or a reliable match report.

The six-part review card

Keep the last row separate. A difficult-to-hear sentence is a communication problem. It does not establish that the underlying decision was incorrect. Likewise, a confident announcement does not replace examination of the incident and applicable rule.

A fictional clip exercise

Imagine a fictional match between Northbridge and Harbour. A repost begins with the referee saying that a goal will not stand. The post’s caption says “VAR invents a foul after the referee already gave the goal.” You can hear the outcome, but the repost shows neither the build-up nor the initial signal.

A careful card would record “goal disallowed” as the heard final decision; the original decision and the alleged foul would remain unknown. The next check is the complete sequence and the competition’s explanation. You cannot settle the claim by replaying only the final ten seconds.

If a longer recording later supplies the original signal and review sequence, update those fields and retain the source. If it supplies a different camera angle, note what that angle shows and what it cannot resolve. Avoid silently converting a caption into evidence.

Write a transcript without inventing missing words

Listen once for the overall decision, then again for the exact wording. Mark uncertain passages as “[unclear]”. If subtitles are supplied by a reposting account, label them as that account’s transcription. They may be useful, but they are not automatically the referee’s verified words.

Do not fill gaps with what you think the referee intended to say. Keep translation separate from transcription, and identify who supplied the translation. A joke caption should not become a literal quote in your report.

Choose a conclusion the evidence supports

• Outcome established: the record supports the final decision, while the available clip may not show the full reasoning.
• Process partly documented: some steps are visible, but important footage or the applicable explanation is missing.
• Disputed interpretation: the incident is visible, yet judging it requires a rule-based interpretation beyond the announcement alone.
• Unverified caption: the repost’s claim has not been corroborated by the match record.

Explain which information would change your conclusion. This makes a report useful even when you cannot settle every disagreement about a decision.

Updated October 8, 2026: Replaced a meme-focused event account with an original viewing worksheet and fictional exercise. This guide does not judge a particular referee’s performance or claim firsthand match attendance. For a broader checking workflow, see our viral-claim worksheet.