I don't know whether or not they can refuse, but I don't think they should. If the VAR thinks there is an error then it would be the height of arrogance to refuse to double check. But the on-field referee should feel empowered to stick by the original decision if they still believe it's correct. It seems nowadays that the expectation, and the reality, is that they will change their mind.
I wonder should they even have to listen to the VAR in their earpiece explaining why they think a mistake was made, or should they just review it from the various angles and make their own decision (again).
The whole process is mucked up. When it started the VAR made most of the contentious decisions and the ref was rarely sent to the monitor. Then people complained that the on-field ref was being bypassed too much and he should get the chance to review on the monitor more often. Now it just feels like the buck is being passed from referee to VAR and back to referee (but listening to VAR).
Is this how it works in other countries with VAR? Is it as contentious and widely ridiculed as it is here?
