After each game, we take a look at the major incidents to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.
Fixtures, result & bracket: Daily World Cup schedule
Total overturns: 24
Rejected overturns: 2
Leading to goals: 6
Leading to disallowed goals: 10
Penalties awarded: 9 (6 missed)
~ for holding: 2
~ for handball: 2
Penalties cancelled: 1 (offside)
Penalty retakes: 1 (GK encroaching)
Rejected penalties: 2
Goals ruled out for offside: 8
Goals after incorrect offside: 2
Red cards: 1
VAR overturn: Penalty for handball by Upamecano
What happened: Deep into added time, Kamil Grosicki attempted to cross the ball into the area, and it hit France defender Dayot Upamecano as he turned away. The referee, Jesus Valenzuela of Venezuela, awarded the corner despite the Poland winger’s claims for handball.
VAR decision: Penalty, Robert Lewandowski‘s effort saved by Hugo Lloris. However, the goalkeeper was off his line when the penalty was kicked, so the VAR ordered a retake and the striker converted at the second attempt.
VAR review: If the ball had hit Upamecano on his left arm, which was tucked into his body, then the VAR, fellow Venezuelan Juan Soto, wouldn’t have advised a penalty.
However, Upamecano’s arm was out and created a barrier for the cross into the area. It may seem like a harsh decision, especially with the proximity of the defender to the cross when it was played, but it’s correct in law.
Also, a goalkeeper must have at least one foot on or above the line when a penalty is struck, and Lewandowski’s feint meant Lloris was already well off his line at the point of the shot; a simple VAR decision to order the retake.
VAR overturn rejected: Penalty for foul by Amartey on Nunez
What happened: In the 58th minute, Darwin Nunez broke into the box and was challenged by Ghana defender Daniel Amartey. Referee Siebert waved away claims for a penalty, but the VAR advised he should go to the monitor to review the incident.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: For only the second time in the tournament, a referee stuck by his originally decision after being sent to the pitchside monitor — but it’s the first time the specific reason for the review has been rejected. In Denmark vs. Tunisia, the referee spotted a foul in the buildup when reviewing a possible handball penalty.
Referee Daniel Siebert took a long look at the incident from several angles, and ultimately concluded he hadn’t made a clear and obvious error to allow play to continue.
There is no doubt Amartey gets a toe to the ball, the question is whether he fouled Nunez in the process of reaching for it. Some angles suggested he got the Uruguay striker first and then the ball, others were less conclusive.
Some will argue this should have been a spot kick, but it is a borderline decision and you can’t argue with the referee standing by his judgement after he’s been shown all the angles. There’s nothing wrong with the VAR, fellow German Bastian Dankert, advising the review and it being rejected. If reviews were never turned down by the referee, it would suggest that VARs are infallible — which clearly can’t be the case because these are subjective, human decisions and not binary.
The ball had hit Nunez’s arm before he was brought down, but this was not assessed. Play restarted with a dropped ball (it wasn’t out of play when the referee spotted the game for the review), rather than a free kick to Ghana in their own penalty area for the handball.
Uruguay had another claim for a penalty in injury time when Edinson Cavani tangled legs with Alidu Seidu. This is similar to Canada’s penalty claim vs. Belgium, when Richie Laryea tangled with Axel Witsel. They are the kind of challenges which are usually left to the on-field decision — whether the referee has given the penalty or not.
VAR overturn: Penalty for foul by Rochet on Kudus
What happened: In the 15th minute, Jordan Ayew had a shot on goal, which Andre Ayew moved out of the way of. It was palmed out by goalkeeper Sergio Rochet, but only as far as Mohammed Kudus. When the Ghana striker got to the ball, Rochet came rushing out and collided with him. But any claims for a penalty were silenced when the offside flag went up against Andre Ayew, before the decision was reviewed.
VAR decision: Penalty, Andre Ayew’s effort saved by Rochet.
VAR review: A simple decision, even if it comes in two parts. The first question is offside against Andre Ayew. Even though he didn’t touch the ball, his movement to allow the shot to pass through to goal would have been an offence. However, FIFA’s offside tech showed that he was being played onside by the trailing boot of defender Mathias Olivera, so the assistant’s flag was incorrect.
With the offside invalidated, it opens up the review for a possible penalty for Rochet’s challenge on Kudus. The striker definitely gets to the ball first before the goalkeeper collides with him, so it came as no surprise that the VAR advised Siebert to review the challenge at the monitor.
The reverse angle gave Siebert the evidence he needed to award the penalty, which was undoubtedly the correct decision. That the ball could have been going out of play doesn’t hold any relevance for the penalty decision.
VAR overturn: Ball in play for Tanaka goal
What happened: Japan thought they had scored a second goal in the 51st minute when Ao Tanaka scored as Kaoru Mitoma cut the ball back from the goal-line, but the referee disallowed the goal for the ball being out of play.
VAR decision: Goal, ball in play.
VAR review: For the VAR, Fernando Guerrero of Mexico, to overturn the decision of the assistant, he has to have definitive evidence that part of the ball is on the line. Importantly, this isn’t just about the ball touching the ground. The curvature overhanging the line also counts, even if a very small part of the ball is doing so. (FIFA’s new tracking technology cannot be used to determine the ball being in or out of play.)
The goal-line camera was used to make the decision, but television companies were left to guess over the evidence used to prove the ball was in play; FIFA should be providing guidance to inform fans.
A photograph from a camera level with the goal-line also appears to prove a small amount of the ball was overhanging the line. That would give the VAR the proof he needs to overturn the on-field decision and award a goal. But this image appeared on the Associated Press’ picture service over an hour after the game. The evidence was not provided by FIFA, and that’s one of the inherent problems of VAR — communication with the fans.
Until this point we’d not seen any clear proof that the ball was touching the line when Mitoma cut it back to Tanaka — even though it actually had on the goal-line camera; we just didn’t know.
The lack of communication from FIFA over VAR overturns in this tournament has fully highlighted the disconnect between the system and the watching fans; there is never any clarity offered at any juncture. Unlike in the Premier League, where the VAR feed is shared to broadcasters throughout a review, FIFA controls the output. If VAR is to be truly accepted, this has to be vastly improved.
Some 18 hours after the incident happened, FIFA finally tweeted out the goal-line camera angle used to make the decision. This could have been done at the time.
Japan’s second goal in their 2-1 win over Spain was checked by VAR to determine if the ball had gone out of play.
The video match officials used the goal line camera images to check if the ball was still partially on the line or not. pic.twitter.com/RhN8meei6Q
— FIFA.com (@FIFAcom) December 2, 2022
It proved to be the goal that knocked Germany out of the World Cup.
VAR overturn: Fullkrug goal allowed after wrong offside
VAR decision: Goal.
VAR review: It’s a goal which is possible due to the modern interpretation of the offside, which creates a new phase every time an attacking player touches the ball.
It means a striker can be stood in an offside position from a pass to a teammate, but as long as he is onside when the ball is played to him there will be no offside offence.
Fullkrug was yards offside when a pass was made to Leroy Sane inside the area, only Sane is relevant for offside at this stage; he was onside though it was close and the flag actually went up against Sane rather than the striker.
When Sane chests the ball across goal, Fullkrug is behind the ball so cannot be offside.
VAR overturn: Penalty cancelled for offside against Lovren
What happened: In the 15th minute, Premier League referee Anthony Taylor pointed to the spot after Yannick Carrasco caught Andrej Kramaric inside the area. But the VAR, Marco Fritz of Germany, checked the buildup for a possible offside.
VAR decision: Penalty cancelled, offside against Dejan Lovren.
VAR review: A simple offside decision in law, though one that might not instantly be clear to fans watching. And without the benefit of hearing the VAR communication, supporters have to rely on commentators to explain the process.
When FIFA announced its new semiautomated offside technology in the summer, head of referees Pierluigi Collina made it clear he felt the technology was so precise that the result should be taken as a matter of fact. In domestic leagues like the Premier League, which use the manual Hawk-Eye lines rather than 3D animation, there is a tolerance level — the benefit of the doubt is given to the striker.
FIFA’s semi-automated tech showed that Lovren was very marginally ahead of Jan Vertonghen when he made a run to latch onto Luka Modric‘s free kick. If this was in the Premier League, the two offside lines would touch and the benefit of the doubt would be given to the attacking side; it would be onside. It was very marginal, with only the edge of Lovren’s arm being in front of Vertonghen’s.
Lovren didn’t touch the ball, but he challenged Vertonghen as the Belgium defender headed it away (before Carrasco was then penalised for the foul on Kramaric, but play is pulled back to the Lovren offside.)
Any offside when the player being penalised doesn’t touch the ball has to be assessed by the referee at the monitor, because it’s a subjective decision over influence on play.
VAR overturn: Penalty for foul by Szczesny on Messi
What happened: Szczesny came out to claim a cross in the 36th minute. Messi got to his head to the ball first, with Szczesny then colliding with the Argentina striker with his arm. The VAR, Paulus Van Boekel of Netherlands, advised a penalty review.
VAR decision: Penalty, Messi’s effort saved by Szczesny.
VAR review: Another remarkable VAR decision, and quite simply not the kind of incident the system was brought in for — it didn’t require the intervention of the VAR.
Granted, Szczesny’s glove did make contact with Messi’s face, but the striker wasn’t prevented from playing the ball and any contact was minimal. A very experienced official is in charge of this game, Dutch referee Danny Makkelie, and it would have been refreshing had he rejected the VAR review at the monitor.
We regularly see attacking players caught by an opponent after they have played the ball all the time, with far stronger challenges than this, and they are very rarely punished. There’s a different discussion to be how about how defensive players get away with that so often, but this is just a completely inconsequential incident.
If the referee gave this as a penalty during the game, that would perhaps be a different matter, but even then many would feel it was so soft there would be grounds for the VAR to overturn it.
VAR overturn: Griezmann goal disallowed for offside
What happened: Antoine Griezmann thought he had scored a dramatic equaliser for France in the 98th minute, but there was a VAR review for offside.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: This drills right to the very heart of the offside law, and the definition of a “deliberate play” to reset a phase. And there’s a huge question over whether it went against VAR protocol.
On VAR protocol itself, referee Conger had blown for full-time. This doesn’t prevent a VAR review, though it’s poor process because the referee should hold play rather than blow the final whistle, if possible, if a review is taking place. There was ample time for the referee and the VAR team to be in communication about it.
The situation for any VAR review which results in a changed decision is that the match, in effect, resumes at the point when the initial error occurred — even if this is after full-time.
Therefore, the match restarted with a free kick to Tunisia, timed at the point of the Griezmann offside, and play continued for 40 seconds.
Video evidence appears to show that Conger gave one short whistle for the kickoff, followed instantly — but with a definite gap — by the full-time whistle. This means he has allowed play to restart and by VAR protocol it isn’t possible to review the offside offence.
If the referee had blown for full-time after the goal, the review was possible. But the restart followed by the immediate full-time whistle invalidates the review.
Fault here could fall on two fronts.
Firstly, the communication between the VAR and the referee; was the referee immediately made aware there was a review ongoing about the goal?
Then, the referee himself. If the VAR isn’t aware the restart has been allowed, the referee should be providing this information. Both referee and VAR should know that a review isn’t possible after his restart.
The Laws of the Game states that an incorrect review doesn’t invalidate a match, but France are adamant it should be a 1-1 draw.
Onto the decision itself, which is no less complicated.
When Aurelien Tchouameni played the ball into the area, Griezmann was stood yards offside. However, the France striker made no attempt to play the ball or challenge an opponent.
Defender Montassar Talbi tried to head the ball, but he didn’t get much on the clearance and it dropped to Griezmann, who scored.
If the officials believed Talbi had made a “deliberate play,” the phase is reset, Griezmann is onside and the goal counts.
If the officials believed Talbi hasn’t made a “deliberate play,” the phase isn’t reset, Griezmann remains offside from Tchouameni’s pass, and the goal is disallowed.
Essentially, a “deliberate play” is about the defender being in control of his actions. It’s not purely about a player trying to kick or head a ball. If the defender has to stretch to play the ball, and can’t have true influence about where it goes, that’s not considered a “deliberate play.” Whether a player is being challenged at that time is also a factor.
This is a hugely subjective area of the offside law, which is why referee Matthew Conger of New Zealand had to go to the pitchside monitor to make the decision.
The VAR, Abdullah al-Marri — who was also on duty for the controversial handball penalty given to Portugal against Uruguay on Monday — and his Qatari colleague acting as the offside VAR, Taleb al-Marri, will have advised that Talbi wasn’t in control of the header and was stretching, therefore this cannot be a “deliberate play.”
This is an IFAB example of a “deliberate play” header = no offside.
It’s similar to Montassar Talbi’s, but with more control over the direction. Shows how complex it is.
— Dale Johnson (@DaleJohnsonESPN) November 30, 2022
This decision will be equally as controversial, because the intricacies of the “deliberate play” aren’t widely known or understood.
Whether you feel this is a correct decision will ultimately rest upon what you feel should constitute a “deliberate play.” But it’s fair to say most people will feel this is an exceptionally harsh VAR decision.
VAR overturn: Berghuis goal disallowed for handball by Gakpo
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: We’ve seen so many variations of a handball offence so far in this tournament: a penalty for an outstretched arm, another even though a player fell on the ball, and a goal allowed even though it hit a player’s arm directly before a teammate scored.
It’s that last example that will confuse fans, when compared to this incident. In Ghana’s win over South Korea, the ball hit the arm of Andre Ayew and Mohammed Salisu scored immediately from it. In this match, the handball from Gapko was much further back in the attacking phase, yet the goal was ruled out.
Both players had their arms in an expected position for their body movement; so Ayew’s handball was accidental, and in the case of Gakpo it’s all about a deliberate act. The law states it’s an offence if a player “deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball.”
Gakpo appeared to lean into the ball to control it, so the VAR, Redouane Jiye of Morocco, was correct to advise a review. It didn’t take long for Gambian referee Bakary Gassama to disallow the goal at the pitchside monitor.
VAR overturn: Penalty for handball by Gimenez
Dale Johnson explains why VAR got it wrong in awarding Portugal a penalty for handball against Uruguay.
What happened: In the 89th minute, Bruno Fernandes attempted to work in the ball into the area. Jose Maria Gimenez slid in to make a challenge and the ball came off his arm that was going to the ground as he was falling backwards. The move broke down and Fernandes appealed for handball, but referee Alireza Faghani of Iran ignored the claims. When the ball eventually went out for a Portugal corner, the VAR, Abdullah Al Marri of Qatar, advised a review for a penalty.
VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Fernandes.
VAR review: A remarkable decision, which goes against the official guidance over exceptions to the handball issued by The IFAB when the law was last clarified in 2021.
The IFAB stripped back the handball last year, removing much of the wording to make it less complicated. But with it came a long presentation to set out when a player should not be penalised for handball — even if their arm is away from the body.
One of those specific examples covers when “arm position is for support when falling or when getting up from the ground.” It doesn’t matter if the ball hits the hand before it touches the ground.
Gimenez is very clearly using his left arm for support as he falls to challenge Fernandes, and this has to be covered by the exception. It is almost identical to the example The IFAB issued.
The only justification for this to be a penalty is if the defender placed his arm in a specific place to deliberately stop the ball, it’s the only explanation the officials have. But Gimenez places him arm in a natural position to support his body, and it just so happened that’s where the ball went.
This shouldn’t have been a penalty, and the extra goal against could yet have repercussions on Uruguay‘s hopes of getting out of the group.
VAR overturn: Richarlison offside on Vinicius goal
What happened: Vinicius Junior had the ball in the back of the net in the 64th minute, but there was a check for offside.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: A surprising miss from the assistant, because Richarlison was a long way offside when running back from a previous attack when substitute Bruno Guimaraes played a pass.
Richarlison got a slight touch on the ball, which began the break for Vinicius to score, so it’s an automatic offside offence.
Even if Richarlison hadn’t touched the ball, it’s likely the goal would have been disallowed because the Brazil striker challenged an opponent — but this would have required a monitor review as a subjective offside decision.
Possible handball: Andre Ayew handball on Salisu goal
What happened: The opening goal of the game came in the 24th minute when Mohammed Salisu stabbed home from close range following a free-kick delivery from Jordan Ayew, but there was a check for handball in the buildup.
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: After Jordan Ayew delivered the ball into the box, it came off the head of South Korea defender Kim Min-Jae and onto the arm of Andre Ayew; when the ball fell loose, Salisu turned to score.
The handball law was amended in the summer of 2021 to state that an accidental handball before a goal is only punishable by the scorer. So, if Andre Ayew had scored himself, this goal would have been disallowed; but because another player scored, there is no offence.
If the handball was deliberate, or the attacker’s arm was in an unnatural position away from his body, the goal could have been disallowed.
Some competitions are stricter with the interpretation of an accidental handball, and this kind of incident in the Champions League may well have led to a VAR intervention.
VAR overturn: Aboubakar goal allowed after wrong offside
What happened: Vincent Aboubakar rushed on to a long ball through the centre in the 63rd minute, and the Cameroon striker chipped a shot over the top of Serbia goalkeeper Vanja Milinkovic-Savic to make the score 2-3 … only for the assistant’s flag to go up for offside.
VAR decision: Goal.
VAR review: A very tight decision, with FIFA’s offside technology making another quick decision to rule Aboubakar was onside. Nikola Milenkovic was just ahead of the Cameroon player, with the defender’s left foot in advance of Aboubakar’s shoulder. It was among the most marginal onside calls we’ll see.
There was also a question of offside about Cameroon’s third goal for Eric Maxim Choupo-Moting just three minutes later. This time the flag stayed down against Aboubakar, who was just played onside, again by Milenkovic, before creating the goal for Choupo-Moting.
VAR overturn: Rudiger offside on goal
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: The fastest offside review we’ve seen, taking just 28 seconds from goal to the referee indicating the goal had been disallowed by the VAR.
Granted, this wasn’t a marginal offside so perhaps we shouldn’t heap too much praise on FIFA’s semi-automated offside technology. But this is how quick we want offside to be with VAR, with the goal ruled out during the celebration and not with players stood around waiting for a decision.
VAR overturn: Saiss offside on Ziyech goal
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: FIFA’s semi-automated offside technology quickly identified that Romain Saiss was ahead of the last defender when Ziyech played the ball, but as the Morocco player didn’t touch the ball before it went into the goal it wasn’t an automatic VAR decision to disallow it.
When the offside player doesn’t touch the ball, it comes down to a subjective decision over his interference in the play. This will always result in an pitchside monitor review when the VAR has identified a possible offence, with the referee — Mexico’s Cesar Ramos — making the final decision.
Saiss clearly made an attempt to head the ball in front of Courtois and had to have an impact on the Belgium goalkeeper, leaving the VAR, Fernando Guerrero of Mexico, little choice but to advise a review.
If Saiss had been stood offside but hadn’t made a move to play the ball, or hadn’t been in the goalkeeper’s line of vision, the goal would have stood.
This is a far clearer example of offside when impacting upon an opponent than the goal Ecuador had disallowed vs. Netherlands on Friday (see below). There was no monitor review for the Ecuador goal because the VAR didn’t believe it was a clear and obvious error by the referee to disallow it.
VAR overturn: Penalty for foul by Bielik on Al-Shehri
What happened: In the 43rd minute, Saudi Arabia‘s Saleh Al-Shehri was shielding the ball inside the area and went down under a challenge from Poland‘s Krystian Bielik. Referee Wilton Sampaio of Brazil rejected claims for a penalty.
VAR review: When assessing a possible penalty, the VAR should be considering the consequences of a defender’s actions, or the nature of the challenge. While there was contact by Bielik on Al-Shehri, it didn’t seem like a clear and obvious error by the referee not to award a penalty.
If Sampaio had awarded the penalty himself, it would be right for the VAR not to get involved to overturn it. But this was minimal contact by Bielik, and Al-Shehri made the most of it — that should not be enough to win a spot kick through the VAR.
The VAR in this game is Canada’s Drew Fischer, who was also in the role on Friday for Wayne Hennessey’s red card for Wales against Iran.
After Szczesny saved the penalty, the VAR checks to make sure the goalkeeper had some part of at least one foot touching the line when the ball was struck by Al-Dawsari. It was either luck or genius from Szczesny, who just had the back of his boot level on the goal line. The VAR has to be 100% certain there was no part of the back of the boot overhanging the edge of the line to order a retake, but it’s a very close decision.
Goal disallowed: Porozo offside on Estupinan goal
What happened: Ecuador thought they had equalised in first-half injury time when Angelo Preciado shot from the edge of the area, and Pervis Estupinan deflected the ball into the back of the net. However, Jackson Porozo was in an offside position in front of Netherlands goalkeeper Andries Noppert and the assistant raised his flag.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: An incredibly harsh offside call on Ecuador, but not a decision that would be seen as technically wrong. It’s far from certain that the VAR, Shaun Evans of Australia, would have advised this subjective element of offside be penalised if the flag had not gone up.
From Preciado’s first shot, Porozo is definitely impacting on Noppert, as he is stood directly in his line of vision to the ball. But the ball does not go past Noppert from this shot, it is deflected towards goal by Estupinan which effectively creates the next offside phase.
At the point the ball touches Estupinan, Porozo is still in an offside position but no longer in the goalkeeper’s line of vision. Noppert is also already diving in an attempt to save Preciado initial shot. The ball then goes very close to Porozo, on the opposite site to Noppert, before going into the goal.
The offside law doesn’t require the goalkeeper to be able to save the ball when an attacker is in a offside player, he only has to be impacted.
Possible penalty: Sarr on Afif
What happened: In the 34th minute and with the game goalless, Akram Afif broke into the area and looked to shield the ball ahead of Ismaila Sarr, and went to ground. Referee Antonio Mateu Lahoz turned down appeals for a penalty.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Much like the Cristiano Ronaldo incident vs. Ghana, the VAR (for this game, Alejandro Hernandez Hernandez) had only a check of this, rather than a full review, before deciding there was no clear and obvious error by the referee.
When looking at incidents in the penalty area, the VAR will always be looking at an attacker’s motives. Has he initiated the contact, or has there being a foul by the defending player?
In this incident, Afif places his body in front of Sarr, which leads to the contact and him going to ground. It can be argued that is simply a case of Afif trying to shield the ball, which he has every right to. Others will say that Afif has no intention of playing the ball himself and he is trying to use his body position to win a penalty.
Because both explanations are valid, the VAR is unlikely to intervene upon the referee’s decision. As with Ronaldo, the decision of the referee — penalty or no penalty — will remain as it is.
VAR overturn: Red card for Hennessey
What happened: In the 84th minute, Mehdi Taremi chased a long ball through the centre, and Wales goalkeeper Wayne Hennessey came rushing out of his area and crashed into the Iran forward. Referee Mario Escobar of Guatemala booked Hennessey for stopping a promising attack.
VAR decision: Yellow card upgraded to red.
VAR review: There was a covering defender, Neco Williams, who could have mopped up the loose ball, so the referee opted not to show a red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO).
The VAR, Canada’s Drew Fischer, was able to show the referee two possible red card scenarios. For DOGSO, but also for serious foul play — due to the nature of Hennessey’s challenge, which could be considered to have endangered the safety of an opponent
Hennessey was in midair when he completely missed the ball in attempting a clearance, and he crashed into the upper body of Taremi with his thigh.
The red card was shown for DOGSO, but it could easily have been either offence.
VAR overturn: Gholizadeh goal disallowed for offside
What happened: Ali Gholizadeh put Iran into the lead against Wales in the 15th minute, but there was a check for offside.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: One of the more obvious VAR offside goals, with Gholizadeh unsure whether to celebrate after putting the ball past goalkeeper Hennessey.
The Iran forward was ahead of the ball when Sardar Azmoun played the ball. If he had held his run and stayed behind the ball he would have been onside, even though he was in front of the last defender.
Possible penalty overturn: Salisu foul on Ronaldo
Dale Johnson discusses the VAR incidents from Portugal’s clash with Ghana.
VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Ronaldo.
VAR review: This only required a quick check by the VAR, United States referee Armando Villarreal.
Replays showed that Ronaldo definitely got to the ball first ahead of Salisu before there was contact on the Portugal striker’s boot and upper body.
Even though this could certainly be considered a soft penalty, we have to look at it in VAR terms; it would not be seen as a clear and obvious error by the match referee, fellow American official Ismail Elfath. Equally, if the referee hadn’t given the penalty, it’s unlikely the VAR would have advised a spot kick.
If Salisu had gotten to the ball first before Ronaldo, this would have been grounds for a full review, but unfortunately for the Ghana defender, he failed to do so.
Ronaldo also thought he had scored in the 31st minute, but the referee had already blown for a foul against him for a push on Alexander Djiku. The VAR is unable to review anything after the referee’s whistle, so he cannot look back at the foul to award the goal.
Dale Johnson discusses the three big VAR talking points from the first half between Belgium and Canada.
VAR overturn: Penalty for handball by Carrasco
VAR decision: Penalty, missed by Alphonso Davies.
VAR review: A simple decision for the VAR, Juan Soto of Venezuela.
Carrasco’s arm was away from his body and had created a barrier to goal, and in the modern game this kind of incident is awarded as a handball.
The Belgium player was booked, with the offence being an automatic caution.
Possible penalty: Foul by Vertonghen on Buchanan
What happened: In the 13th minute, Buchanan went down inside the area after a challenge from Jan Vertonghen, but the flag went up for offside.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: A strange situation, because the assistant got the offside completely wrong. The ball was actually passed back towards his own goal by Eden Hazard, not by a Canada player, so there was no possible offside offence. However, the possible foul by Vertonghen happened before Zambian referee Janny Sikazwe blew his whistle to stop play, so a VAR review for a penalty was still possible.
A replay showed that Vertonghen got a toe to the ball before he caught Buchanan, which is absolutely crucial in determining whether the decision goes to a VAR review. Without that touch, the offside would have been cancelled and a penalty awarded to Canada.
If Vertonghen’s challenge had been more reckless, or with force, that could have overridden the touch on the ball and led to a VAR review.
Possible penalty: Foul by Witsel on Laryea
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: The kind of decision best left to the on-field referee rather than the VAR.
Although there certainly is contact by Witsel on Laryea, it’s not through making a challenge. That doesn’t rule out the possibility of a penalty, but it wouldn’t be seen as a clear and obvious error by the referee not to award one with the players running alongside each other.
There is also a question of Laryea placing his leg into the path of Witsel to draw the contact. This isn’t really initiating contact, however, so if the referee had given the spot kick it would not have been overturned.
That said, penalties earlier in the tournament appear to have come from a VAR review with less contact, so Canada may feel aggrieved.
VAR overturn: Havertz goal disallowed for offside
VAR decision: Offside, goal disallowed.
VAR review: Havertz was well ahead of the last defender, but would still have been onside had he been behind the ball.
Unfortunately for Germany, the Chelsea forward was leaning in front of the ball and therefore the goal was correctly disallowed by the offside VAR, United States official Kathryn Nesbitt.
VAR overturn: Penalty for a foul by Moreno on Lewandowski
What happened: The game was in the 54th minute when Robert Lewandowski went down in the area when battling for a through ball with Mexico defender Hector Moreno. Australian referee Christopher Beath waved away the claims for a penalty.
VAR decision: Penalty, missed by Lewandowski.
VAR review: Certainly a clearer penalty for the VAR, Shaun Evans, than others we have see so far in this World Cup, because Moreno had hold of the Poland striker’s shirt and also fouled him when attempting to bring his left foot across the opponent.
Moreno only received a yellow card, as there should be no red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity when the player gives away a penalty but is making an attempt to play the ball. If the spot kick had only been given for the shirt pull, there would be a case for a red card. That said, some would argue Moreno had little chance of playing the ball.
The penalty was saved by Guillermo Ochoa, with the VAR checking that the Mexico goalkeeper had one foot on the line when Lewandowski kicked the ball. Grzegorz Krychowiak followed up and wasn’t encroaching, so the goal would have stood if he hadn’t fluffed his shot.
VAR overturn rejected: Penalty for handball by Meriah
VAR decision: No penalty, review rejected for another foul in the buildup.
VAR review: Full marks to Mexican referee Cesar Ramos, who rejected the advice of the VAR, Fernando Guerrero, to award a penalty for handball as he saw that Denmark’s Mathias Jensen had barged Taha Yassine Khenissi to the ground as the corner came in.
At the monitor the referee has all options open to him, and if he sees an attacking infringement before the incident highlighted by the VAR he has the right to penalise the first offence.
The game had continued for one minute and Denmark had a corner when the referee was sent to the monitor; play restarted with a free kick to Tunisia for the foul by Jensen. In a quirk of VAR protocol, had Denmark scored in the minute before the VAR review then the goal would have stood with advantage considered to have been played; the foul by Jensen would never have been picked up or reviewed as a foul in the buildup to a goal.
Dale Johnson explains why Denmark were not awarded an injury-time penalty vs. Tunisia despite a VAR review.
On the handball itself, even though the ball first came off the body of Meriah before hitting the defender’s hand, a penalty can still be awarded. A deflection off the body doesn’t automatically cancel a possible handball offence. If the arm is away from the body it can still be penalised even with a deflection. But in this case the referee chose to give the foul against Jensen which came before the handball.
Dale Johnson explains some of the refereeing decisions in Argentina’s loss to Saudi Arabia at the World Cup.
VAR overturn: Penalty for foul by Abdulhamid on Paredes
VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Lionel Messi.
VAR review: FIFA said ahead of the tournament that jostling inside the penalty area would be penalised on a more regular basis, but the decision to give a spot kick to Argentina for Saud Abdulhamid holding back Leandro Paredes seemed to be another soft decision. It doesn’t really fit with the mantra that VAR should be “minimal interference for maximum benefit.”
This does bring us back to the other incident in England’s game against Iran, when Harry Maguire didn’t get a penalty. The key difference was that the England defender also had his arm around Roozbeh Cheshmi, which is why the VAR didn’t get involved. In the Saudi Arabia case, the only holding was from Abdulhamid.
It’s difficult for fans to understand how these incidents can be treated differently when there is no explanation or VAR audio to give clarity. But if this is the base level, there are going to be a lot of VAR penalties in this World Cup.
VAR overturn: Offside against Martinez
What happened: Lautaro Martinez scored a second goal for Argentina in the 27th minute, or so he thought.
VAR decision: No goal, offside.
VAR review: With FIFA’s semi-automated offside technology making decisions faster and more accurately, it didn’t take long for Martinez’s goal to be disallowed. The Argentina striker was leaning in front of the last defender, which wasn’t spotted by the assistant referee.
It was a tight one, but players are able to play the ball and score a goal with the upper part of their arm, so it was correct to disallow the goal.
There were two other first-half Argentina goals disallowed for offside, another against Martinez and one for Messi, which were correctly flagged by the assistant.
Dale Johnson explains VAR’s decision to award Iran a penalty when England were denied one earlier for a similar incident.
VAR overturn: Penalty for foul by Stones on Pouraliganji
What happened: In the 10th minute of added time, Iran were awarded a free kick, which was swung into the area but came to nothing. But the VAR, Uruguayan referee Leodan Gonzalez, was reviewing a possible penalty.
VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Mehdi Taremi.
VAR review: It’s the kind of decision that fans really dislike with VAR, coming from what seems to be an inconsequential incident — especially when a more obvious event earlier in the game did not lead to a VAR intervention.
When the free kick was played into the penalty area, Morteza Pouraliganji went to challenge for the ball but his shirt was pulled by John Stones. It was a minor pull and it’s questionable whether there was any impact on the Iran defender.
So, what’s the difference for the VAR? Most importantly, Maguire also had his arm around Cheshmi, which will also be taken into account by the VAR as a holding offence by both players. This was key.
Another consideration can be whether an attacking player is prevented from being able to challenge for the ball; ergo, would he have had a chance of playing the ball without the challenge? It’s not the only factor, and FIFA appears to be placing less importance on this aspect, but the VAR could take it into account.
In the case of Maguire, it was deemed that even with the holding offence by Cheshmi, the ball was not in immediate playing distance. Therefore, the England player was not prevented from competing from the ball.
With Pouraliganji, the ball was crossed in close proximity to him, which meant the shirt pull from Stones was deemed to prevent the opponent from challenging for the ball.
Match referee Raphael Claus had a long, hard look at the incident on the monitor and decided to accept the advice of the VAR. No one will want to see such minor infringements penalised throughout the tournament. Is it really clear and obvious?
Dale Johnson explains why Ecuador had a goal ruled out in confusing circumstances in the World Cup opener vs. Qatar.
VAR overturn: Valencia goal ruled out for offside
What happened: In the third minute Ecuador thought they had the lead against hosts Qatar through Enner Valencia, but there was a lengthy review for offside.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: This was the correct decision, though it wasn’t at all clear for fans and it took quite some time for the 3D visualisation to be shown.
When the free kick was played into the area, Ecuador defender Felix Torres challenged Qatar goalkeeper Saad Al-Sheeb. The ball fell to Michael Estrada, who headed it back to Torres for him to create the goal for Valencia.
However, when Torres got a touch on the ball (the direction it travels, forwards or backwards, is irrelevant) Estrada had one foot ahead of the second-last defensive player, who was Abdelkarim Hassan.
The review took longer than a regular offside check because the offside VAR, Tomasz Listkiewicz, had to be certain that the ball came off Torres. Without that, Estrada would not have been offside.
The touch from Al-Sheeb before the ball came off the head of Torres is of no relevance to the offside decision — the phase for every other player’s offside position is set from the touch by Torres. It’s also irrelevant whether or not an attacking player means to play the ball the way he has.
The added confusion comes from Estrada being obscured by Torres and Al-Sheeb, and another defender being closer to goal. Fans naturally look for the last defender, which can be misleading when the goalkeeper is farther ahead. There must be two opposition players, usually the goalkeeper and a defender, between the attacker and the goal. In this situation, only one defender was ahead of Estrada; Al-Sheeb wasn’t even the second-last defensive player in this case, it was Hassan (who was also blocked from view by Torres and Al-Sheeb.)
It was actually a very simple and clear offside decision once the touch from Torres is confirmed, with Estrada clearly ahead of Hassan, but there was a lack of clarity over it for too long. Even with FIFA’s semi-automated offside technology, the time taken for the fans to be given clarity must be improved.