ArticlePloS one2026
Psychology at the screen: Investigating the current VAR protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the psychological process of the current Video Assistant Referee (VAR) protocol by calculating, i) the prevalence of overturn/maintain decisions by the referee at the pitch-side monitor, ii) the likelihood that the referee would overturn their decision based on external factors, iii) the likelihood that the VAR would intervene based on external factors. 1520 matches were reviewed across 2021/22-2024/25 seasons in the English Premier League where the referee was advised to consult the pitch-side monitor 250 times, overturning their original decision 95% of the time. Binary Logistic Regression found that external factors did not predict the referee's decision or VAR intervention. The high prevalence of overturn decisions may be expected as referees are being advised to review potential errors and interestingly maintain decisions were more prevalent when related to the home team, potentially due to proximity bias of the home crowd.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.