Exploring VAR and corner kicks
Corner kicks are restarts and can influence play, but they're not reviewable unless they lead to checkable incidents. In the attacking phase of play, the VAR can check if the ball was out of play. IFAB allows for review of offenses during the build-up to a goal, such as offside or fouls. There’s been some discussion about whether VAR should be used to review corner or goal kick decisions if they result in a goal-scoring opportunity.Discussing VAR constraints
I need to explain the constraints of the IFAB protocol, which aims to minimize interruptions and keep the match flowing. The number of checkable restarts is limited, and corner decisions can be quite subjective. While whether the last touch was by a defender is factual, it might not always be clear due to camera perspectives. Allowing VAR to review every corner could cause delays; it’s not usually deemed a "clear and obvious error." However, Collina suggested that if a decision between a corner or goal kick leads to a goal, VAR might check if the initial restart was correct.Clarifying VAR protocol
I believe the current protocol allows VAR to check if the ball was out of play only in the attacking phase of play (APP) leading to a goal, including whether it should have been a corner or a goal kick. As of 2024, the IFAB VAR protocol specifies that it’s reviewable for goal/no goal situations, which includes determining if the ball crossed the goal or touchline before the goal and if the restart decision was correct.Evaluating corner kick VAR checks
I’m considering whether VAR can cancel a goal scored directly from an incorrectly awarded corner. According to the rules, VAR can review if the corner leading to the goal was justified. It mentions that if a goal results from a corner kick, the VAR can check if the ball fully crossed the goal line for a goal kick instead. I think VAR reviewable incidents do include the ball being out of play before a goal, but I’m unsure if this covers a wrongly awarded corner.
简要回答：目前不是做不到，而是规则不允许。
- 现行VAR范围（IFAB协议）：只介入4类“比赛决定性”事件——进球/未进球、点球/取消点球、直接红牌、错判身份。
- 与角球相关的可查项：VAR可以查“球是否整体出界”这种客观事实，且仅在与上述4类直接相关时介入；但“应判角球还是球门球/界外球”的方向（谁最后触球）目前不在可复核范围。
- 实际效果：角球后进球，VAR会查犯规、手球、越位、球是否先出界等；但不会因为“最后触球判错”而改判角球/球门球并推翻进球，除非证明确实根本没出界。
- 为何不扩展到角球判罚：
- 频次太高、代价过大：若把“方向”也纳入，几乎每次出界都可能触发复核，严重拖慢比赛。
- 证据并非总是客观清晰：机位角度/遮挡使“最后触球”并不总能快速、确凿判定。
- 边界与一致性：开放角球方向，就很难拒绝界外球方向等其它重新开始的判罚，范围失控。
- 比赛流畅度与裁判权威的取舍：协议刻意只覆盖“比赛决定性”情形，限制介入频度。
- 要改变现状：必须由IFAB修改VAR协议，明确触发条件（例如仅限“由该角球直接导致的进球”时才查方向），并评估机位、耗时与一致性影响。
所以，对“既然具备核查条件，为何不能在角球判罚引入VAR”的回应是：技术上可行但成本与副作用高，现行规则刻意不纳入；是否扩展取决于IFAB的政策取舍，而非纯技术限制。