For a moment, Egypt thought they had one foot in the quarterfinals.
After giving Egypt a 2-0 lead against Argentina, Mustafa Zico took off his shirt in celebration to stop the game. Seventeen seconds before the goal, Marwan Attia appeared to get hold of Lisandro Martinez’s legs. The incident happened at the other end of the pitch. But VAR sent the referee to the pitch-side monitor.
Seconds later, the goal was disallowed. It was believed that Egypt had illegally gained possession, although there was much of the game before the end.
The decision immediately reignited the debate over the scope of VAR reviews. The protocol allows authorities to immediately monitor crimes committed during the attack phase that lead to the target being reached. However, many questioned whether the incident was connected enough to overturn, given the time that had passed since the tackle and the fact that it happened almost 100 yards away. This controversial decision is not the first time at the World Cup, a VAR-driven decision or the inaction of VAR officials has caused an uproar. Inconsistent VAR calls have affected the competition.
Ghana 0-0 England, 79th min
Incident: England’s Ezri Konsa catches Prince Kwabena Adu in the box.
Verdict: No penalty. VAR does not intervene.
“VAR went for coffee,” raged coach Carlo Queiroz after Ghana were denied what they believed to be the match-winning penalty. Konsa appeared to clip Adu while trying to get to a loose ball, but the referee called play on and VAR did not find a “clear and obvious” error. Under the protocol, VAR is meant to correct only obvious mistakes rather than re-refereeing subjective calls. For Ghana, however, the challenge seemed clear enough.
Brazil 3-0 Scotland, 22nd min
Incident: Vinicius Jr. scores after sacking Jack Hendry.
Story continues below this ad
Ruling: Goal disallowed after VAR review for foul in build-up.
Vinicius thought he had doubled Brazil’s lead when he took the ball away from Hendrie and finished clinically. Instead, VAR recommended an on-field review, with the referee having fouled Hendry moments earlier. Replays showed only slight contact, prompting Brazil to argue that similar physical duels had gone unpunished elsewhere in the tournament. The debate focused less on the foul than on the threshold of interference.
Ecuador 2-1 Germany, 2nd min
Incident: Germany’s Aleksandar Pavlovic catches Pedro Witt with a high boot before Leroy Sa scores.
Ruling: No foul. The goal is standing.
If Brazil were punished for minimal contact, Ecuador believes Germany is far from being punished for something more serious. Pavlovic’s raised boot appeared to catch Vitale before Germany’s opening goal, but VAR saw no reason to intervene. The incident, seen in favor of Brazil’s disallowed goal a few days earlier, has fueled criticism that similar challenges in attacking phases are being judged differently.
Story continues below this ad
USA 2-0 Bosnia and Herzegovina, 64th min
Incident: USA’s Folarin Balogun steps on Tarik Muharemovic’s calf and both players fall.
Verdict: Straight red card after VAR review.
Referee Rafael Clause hadn’t even called a foul in real time before VAR advised an on-field review. After watching the replay, he dismissed Balogun for a serious foul. Slow-motion footage showed the stud landing on Muharemovic’s calf, although Balogun lost his balance instead of deliberately grappling. Law 12 focuses on the threat of the challenge rather than the intent, and FIFA deemed contact sufficient for a red card. However, this decision would later become the benchmark against which other events were judged.
Argentina 3-0 Algeria, 32nd min
Incident: Lionel Messi grabs Aisa Mandy on the calf with his stud.
Verdict: No card. No VAR review.
Overshadowed by Messi’s hat-trick at the time, the challenge took on greater significance after Balogun’s dismissal. Replays showed Messi’s studs making contact with the back of Mandy’s calf, yet neither the referee nor VAR intervened. Algeria’s federation later filed a complaint, while the former referee argued that the challenge met the same threshold as Balogun. Taken together, the two events became clear examples of competition in the continuity debate.
Story continues below this ad
Belgium 3-2 Senegal, 118th min – 125th min
INCIDENT: Belgium’s Youri Tielemans goes down under a challenge from Lamine Kamara in extra time.
Ruling: Penalty awarded after seven minute VAR review.
Having led 2-0 late in normal time, Senegal’s woes were compounded when play was halted for the longest VAR review of the tournament and penalties began. After studying several angles, the referee awarded Belgium a penalty, which Tielemans converted to complete the comeback. Supporters argued that the procedure worked correctly, with VAR alerting the referee to a potential error. Critics countered that a seven-minute review of such a minor incident suggested the game had gone beyond correcting a “clear and obvious” mistake in the referee.
How VAR works
Unlike on-pitch referees, video assistant referees (VAR) operate from a dedicated video operations room, where a team of officials monitors every angle of the match in real time.
What is their scope and how do they interact with the referee?
If they detect a potential “clear and obvious error” or a serious missed incident in one of VAR’s four reviewable categories – goal, penalty, straight red card and misidentification – they communicate with the referee via earpiece. Depending on the nature of the incident, the referee may either accept the information directly or advise an on-field review by watching the replay on the pitchside monitor.
Story continues below this ad
Who makes the final decision?
The final decision always rests with the referee. VAR, in theory, is only intended to correct obvious mistakes rather than re-refereing subjective decisions.