For a brief moment, it seemed that Egypt was on the verge of advancing to the quarterfinals of the tournament.
Mostafa Ziko celebrated exuberantly, removing his shirt after scoring to put Egypt ahead 2-0 against Argentina. However, the celebration was short-lived as play was interrupted. Just 17 seconds prior to the goal, Marwan Attia appeared to step on Lisandro Martínez’s foot during a contest for possession at the opposite end of the field. The incident prompted the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) to direct the referee to review the play on the pitch-side monitor.
Following the review, the goal was disallowed. It was determined that Egypt had gained possession through an illegal action, despite the considerable amount of play that occurred before the goal was scored.
This decision sparked renewed discussion around the boundaries of VAR reviews. The existing protocol allows officials to review infractions that occur in the immediate attacking sequence leading to a goal. However, many questioned whether the tackle was sufficiently linked to the goal given the elapsed time and the distance of nearly 100 yards. This controversial ruling is not an isolated incident at the World Cup, as previous VAR-related decisions or inaction have stirred significant outrage. The tournament has been marred by inconsistent VAR calls.
In another instance, England’s Ezri Konsa was involved in a controversial play when he collided with Prince Kwabena Adu in the penalty area.
The ruling: no penalty awarded. VAR chose not to intervene.
Coach Carlo Queiroz expressed his frustration, claiming that VAR “went for a coffee” after Ghana was denied what they believed to be a decisive penalty. Adu seemed to be contacted by Konsa while trying to reach a loose ball, but the referee allowed play to continue, and VAR found no “clear and obvious” mistake. According to the protocol, VAR is designed to rectify only blatant errors rather than reassess subjective judgments. However, to Ghana, the situation appeared unmistakably clear.
In a separate incident, Brazilian player Vinicius Jr. thought he had scored a goal by dispossessing Jack Hendry.
The ruling: the goal was disallowed after a VAR review due to a foul in the build-up.
Vinicius initially celebrated what he thought was Brazil’s second goal, but VAR prompted an on-field review, leading the referee to decide that Hendry had been fouled moments before. Replays indicated only minimal contact, leading Brazil to argue that similar physical challenges had gone unpunished earlier in the tournament. The discussion centered on the criteria for VAR intervention rather than the foul itself.
Meanwhile, in another match, Germany’s Aleksandar Pavlovic made contact with Pedro Vite with a high boot before Leroy Sané scored.
The ruling: no foul called, and the goal stood.
While Brazil felt penalized for a minor contact, Ecuador believed Germany escaped consequences for a more severe incident. Pavlovic’s contact with Vite occurred prior to Germany’s opening goal, yet VAR determined no intervention was necessary. This incident, alongside Brazil’s disallowed goal, fueled criticism regarding the inconsistent judgments applied to similar challenges during the attacking phase.
In a different match, USA’s Folarin Balogun stepped on Tarik Muharemovic’s calf as both players fell.
The ruling: a straight red card was issued after a VAR review.
The referee had not initially called a foul, but after VAR recommended an on-field review, he dismissed Balogun for serious foul play. Slow-motion replays showed Balogun’s studs making contact with Muharemovic’s calf, although it appeared he lost his balance rather than making a deliberate lunge. FIFA determined the contact warranted a red card, establishing a standard against which future incidents would be measured.
In a notable incident, Lionel Messi made contact with Aissa Mandi’s calf with his studs.
The ruling: no card issued, and no VAR review was conducted.
Although overshadowed by Messi’s hat-trick, this incident gained importance in light of Balogun’s red card. Replays revealed Messi’s studs contacting Mandi’s calf, yet neither the referee nor VAR took action. Algeria’s football association later filed a complaint, and former referees suggested that the challenge met a similar threshold to that of Balogun’s. Together, these incidents highlighted significant discussions regarding consistency throughout the tournament.
Finally, Belgium’s Youri Tielemans went down after being challenged by Lamine Camara in extra time.
The ruling: a penalty was awarded following a seven-minute VAR review.
After relinquishing a 2-0 lead late in regular time, Senegal faced further disappointment when the longest VAR review of the tournament occurred just as penalties loomed. After examining multiple angles, the referee awarded Belgium a penalty, which Tielemans successfully converted, completing the comeback. While some supporters applauded the process for functioning as intended by correcting a possible error, others criticized the lengthy review over a marginal incident, suggesting it exceeded the original aim of rectifying a “clear and obvious” mistake.
Unlike the on-field referee, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) operates from a dedicated video operations room, where a team of officials monitors the game in real time from various angles.
If they detect a potential “clear and obvious error” or a serious oversight in one of VAR’s reviewable categories—goals, penalties, direct red cards, and mistaken identity—they communicate with the referee through an earpiece. Depending on the situation, the referee may either act on the information provided or be instructed to review the incident on the pitch-side monitor.
Ultimately, the final decision remains with the referee. In theory, the purpose of the VAR is to amend clear errors rather than to reassess subjective decisions made during the match.
