Thomas Tuchel expressed his dissatisfaction with the officiating during the World Cup following England’s victory over Mexico, labeling it as inconsistent and inadequate. His remarks seemed to hint at a reverse psychology tactic, as the referees have generally performed acceptably, though there have been moments of error. Like all individuals, referees are not infallible.
Egypt voiced their grievances regarding a perceived injustice in their match against Argentina, particularly concerning the disallowed goal and the validity of Argentina’s winning goal. The first incident involved a foul committed by Marwan Attia on Lisandro Martínez during the attacking sequence, which included a shirt pull and contact with Martínez’s foot. The rules do not impose a time limit or restrict the number of passes that can be considered in determining the legality of a goal.
A key element in this situation was that the ball maintained a forward momentum without lateral or backward passes until it found the net. Although it could have been a standout goal of the tournament, the decision to disallow it was ultimately justified.
Regarding Argentina’s late third goal, Egypt contended that Julián Alvarez fouled Mohamed Salah. While some are drawing parallels between this and the earlier incident due to contact, the scenarios differ significantly. Alvarez’s actions involved playing the ball first, and the subsequent contact did not rise to the level of a foul or warrant video assistant referee review.
The VAR system proved crucial during the Mexico-England match, especially concerning Jarell Quansah’s tackle on Jesús Gallardo, which was deemed a red-card offense that the referee, Alireza Faghani, failed to recognize during the game. Following a VAR review, the appropriate decision was reached.
Tuchel was frustrated by several calls during the match. Given the atmosphere, the weather, and the setting of the Azteca Stadium, officiating was always going to be challenging. However, some players exacerbated the situation by feigning injuries and protesting nearly every decision, leading to an outburst from the entire Mexico bench after the Quansah incident, which escalated tensions.
The news of England contemplating an appeal against Quansah’s red card is unexpected, especially considering the recent changes brought about by the Folarin Balogun incident. Traditionally, there has been no avenue for appealing red cards in tournament play, with automatic one-match suspensions in place. I was previously unfamiliar with Article 27 of FIFA’s disciplinary code, which was cited in relation to Balogun’s suspension.
Balogun’s red card was defensible through VAR, as my initial assessment of his challenge on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Tarik Muharemovic did not suggest a clear red card, but replays indicated otherwise, despite the absence of malicious intent. The location of the ball during the challenge was critical, as it was not within a playable distance.
When evaluating potential red-card offenses, two primary factors to consider are excessive force and the risk posed to an opponent’s safety. In Balogun’s case, the point of contact was on the calf, extending to the Achilles, which resulted in an ankle twist that could have led to a serious injury.
Tuchel’s remarks, combined with Donald Trump’s involvement, have amplified discussions surrounding officiating. As a referee, it is essential to remain unaffected by such external noise. In high-level officiating, sports psychologists assist referees in managing their focus. Personally, I struggled to move past a bad decision for several days; however, it is crucial not to let it influence subsequent performance. Maintaining composure and concentrating on the present moment is vital.
This World Cup has seen 13 red cards issued, a notable increase compared to four in each of the previous two tournaments, yet I believe the cases are justifiable. Player safety must be prioritized, as exemplified by the decisions involving Quansah and Balogun. VAR has been effectively utilized to rectify missed red cards on the field.
That said, VAR decisions have not been without flaws. For instance, Vinícius Júnior’s disallowed goal for Brazil against Scotland was one instance where I believed the on-field decision to award a goal was correct. The contact was minimal, and not all contact constitutes a foul, as it is a natural aspect of football. This scenario did not represent a clear and obvious mistake by the referee.
In such cases, a “check complete” call would have sufficed, eliminating the need for re-refereeing. I also felt that Harry Kane should have been awarded a penalty against the Democratic Republic of the Congo after being contacted by goalkeeper Lionel Mpasi. However, since it did not constitute a clear and obvious error, I agreed with the video assistant’s decision to uphold the original call.
On the other hand, VAR was appropriately utilized to award France a penalty after Désiré Doué was fouled by Diego Gómez of Paraguay. I was surprised that referee Ilgiz Tantashev did not award that penalty during the match.
This match also presented its own challenges for the referee, who needed to exert more authority. I was taken aback that no Paraguay players received cautions. While referees aim to manage the game effectively, it is sometimes necessary to enforce discipline by issuing cards. There were multiple instances where Tantashev should have shown yellow cards, and his failure to do so allowed Paraguay to gain confidence, putting his control of the game at risk.
FIFA has evidently adjusted its approach to VAR, establishing a high threshold for intervention similar to practices in the Premier League. Observing different refereeing styles from various countries and confederations has been intriguing. However, certain fouls remain universally recognized, which makes it surprising when they go unpunished.
