When Was VAR First Used at AFCON and How Did It Start

Which specific stage of the tournament was the technology first introduced?

The technology debuted at the quarter-final stage, specifically during the match between Senegal and Benin on July 10, 2019.

• Four cameras were initially required at a minimum to cover basic angles for offside and penalty decisions.
• Fiber optics had to be installed in existing stadiums to make sure the video feed reached the mobile VAR vans without latency.
• Referee monitors were placed in designated zones near the touchline to allow officials to view replays in real-time.
• Communication headsets were provided to the VAR team to maintain a constant, clear link with the center referee on the pitch.

What were the primary logistical challenges of implementing video officiating across host venues?

Logistical hurdles included the lack of standardized fiber-optic cabling across all Egyptian venues, which required setting up temporary mobile command centers. Engineers had to ensure power stability for these units, as fluctuations could disrupt the 4K video feeds required for accurate frame-by-frame analysis.

How has the protocol for reviewing on-field decisions evolved since its introduction?

The protocol has shifted toward a more streamlined intervention process that prioritizes clear and obvious errors while minimizing the time spent at the pitch-side monitor.

• Protocol 1 now mandates that referees prioritize the "on-field" decision unless the video footage provides indisputable evidence to the contrary.
• Protocol 2 limits the scope of reviews to goals, penalty incidents, red cards, and cases of mistaken identity to keep the flow of play.
• Protocol 3 encourages referees to use the pitch-side monitor only for subjective calls, relying on the VAR for factual offside checks.
• Protocol 4 requires the VAR to communicate directly with the referee using a standardized, concise script to reduce confusion.

Which match was the first to feature a successful intervention by the video assistant referee?

The first match featuring a VAR intervention was the quarter-final between Senegal and Benin, where the referee used the technology to confirm a goal. Many fans assume that VAR automatically reviews every single foul, but the system is strictly limited to four specific categories of game-changing incidents. If a foul occurs outside these categories, the VAR cannot legally intervene, regardless of how controversial the non-call might appear to spectators or players watching on television.

What criteria must a stadium meet to be certified for the implementation of this technology?

Yes, stadiums must pass a rigorous certification process, which includes the installation of at least 12 high-definition cameras to cover all angles. The facility must provide a dedicated, climate-controlled room for the video operations team to house the necessary server racks and communication hardware.

How do officials undergo training and certification to operate the system during the tournament?

Referees undergo an intensive certification program managed by the Confederation of African Football that involves both classroom theory and practical simulation. They spend weeks practicing in controlled environments, often using recorded matches to test their speed and accuracy in identifying infractions. A typical training module includes hundreds of hours of video analysis to ensure officials can distinguish between a tactical foul and a genuine attempt to play the ball.

One specific example of this training involves "live" testing where referees officiate matches with the VAR system active but without the results impacting the final score. An important nuance is that not all referees are certified as VAR operators; many remain focused solely on pitch-side duties, as the cognitive load required to manage video technology differs significantly from traditional officiating.

What has been the general impact of the system on match duration and stoppage time?

The introduction of VAR has led to an average increase of 3 to 6 minutes in total match duration due to review delays.

Use these figures to estimate how much extra stoppage time the fourth official should signal at the end of each half.

How have participating federations and players responded to the integration of the technology?

Responses from federations and players have been mixed, with many praising the increased accuracy of penalty decisions while others express frustration over the loss of momentum. Players often find the long waits for offside checks to be disruptive to their rhythm, especially during high-intensity periods of the game. Some federations have formally requested more transparency regarding how decisions are reached, arguing that the lack of public communication during the review process creates unnecessary tension in the stadium.

One notable example occurred during the 2021 tournament, where several coaches publicly criticized the inconsistency of VAR interventions across different matches. A nuance to this reception is that veteran players who experienced the game before the technology often express more skepticism than younger athletes who have grown up with video assistance in domestic leagues.