The video assistant referee causes controversy every week, whether it be the Premier League, Champions League or FA Cup, but now we have a 104-game FIFA men’s World Cup to cover, so how are the decisions made this summer and are they correct?
For the tournament, we are taking a look at the major incidents to examine and explain the process in terms of both VAR protocol and the laws of the game.
Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, with over 12 seasons on the elite list, working across the Premier League and Championship. With extensive experience at the elite level, he has operated within the VAR space in the Premier League and offers a unique insight into the processes, rationale and protocols that are delivered on a World Cup matchday.
June 22
Argentina vs. Austria
Referee: Amin Mohamed Omar
VAR: Khamis Al Marri
Time: 38 minutes
Incident: Argentina goal, possible foul in the buildup
What happened: As Lionel Messi celebrated his record-breaking World Cup goal, Austria were left questioning a possible foul in the buildup by Argentina’s Alexis Mac Allister on Xaver Schlager that directly led to Argentina scoring. The referee awarded the goal.
VAR decision: The VAR checked and cleared the on-field decision of goal as a correct one.
VAR review: The VAR checked the attacking phase prior to the goal being scored and was comfortable that no foul had occurred in the buildup. The coming together of Mac Allister and Schlager was not viewed as a clear on-field error and therefore did not meet the threshold of an on-field review.
Verdict: VAR was correct not to intervene with the contact between Mac Allister and Schlager, as it was debatable if it met the threshold for a foul. Schlager’s feet were not set when contact occurred between the two players, with the Austrian’s movement off the ground and momentum into Mac Allister correctly judged a partial source of the ultimate contact.
The bar for VAR intervention at this tournament is impressively high, and in this situation, once this appeal was waved away by the on-field refereeing team, the VAR would not be looking to intervene and recommend that a goal be disallowed unless there was clear evidence an error had been made. That was not the case here.
June 21
Iran vs. Belgium
Referee: Darío Herrera
VAR: Hernán Mastrángelo
Time: 25 minutes
Incident: Iran goal ruled out for offside after VAR check
What happened: Iran thought they had opened the scoring in the 25th minute when Mehdi Taremi scored after netting from a smartly worked free-kick routine — which was reminiscent of Wout Weghorst’s clever stoppage-time goal for Netherlands vs. Argentina at the 2022 FIFA World Cup — only for his effort to be ruled out for offside following a review.
Mehdi Taremi found the back of the net for Iran, but the goal was disallowed after a VAR check determined it was offside pic.twitter.com/HebR7GY46j
— FOX Soccer (@FOXSoccer) June 21, 2026
VAR review: A lengthy review from VAR eventually identified that Taremi was marginally in an offside position when the free kick was played. As he was turned with his back to goal, it was his backside that was over the line.
Verdict: A correct decision by VAR to disallow the goal, however why it took the time it did with the technology available caused some debate after the match.
Ultimately it was a tight call even with technology, as the number of players involved made it more complicated. In such circumstances, a manual check also forms part of the review process. But the right call was made in the end.
Time: 66 minutes
Incident: Red card. Belgium defender Nathan Ngoy sent off for denial of a goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO).
What happened: What looked like a routine pass back to Ngoy high up the pitch was miscontrolled by the young defender, who then dragged down Iran’s Taremi as he was seemingly set to run through on goal. The referee sent Ngoy off for denial of a goal-scoring opportunity.
VAR review: A straightforward check and clear for VAR, as they felt all the criteria for a DOGSO were met.
Verdict: A correct on-field decision by the referee, which was cleared by VAR.
Once a defender miscontrols a ball in this area of the pitch, it triggers the refereeing team onto a possible DOGSO situation. The key component as to what happens next is to identify if and what type of foul action is committed by the defender. Simultaneously, the referee must take a snapshot of where the actual offense takes place and the dynamic position of other defenders/goalkeeper to be able to make the next decision.
The only potential debate in this situation was Taremi’s distance to goal. However, the attacker’s direction of play, likelihood of controlling the ball, no covering defenders and the deep position of the goalkeeper meant this met all the criteria for a DOGSO red card.
June 19
Paraguay vs. Türkiye
Referee: Ivan Barton
VAR: Khamis Al Marri
Time: 45+3 minutes
Incident: Red card for Paraguay’s Miguel Almiron
What happened: After a foul on Paraguay striker Isidro Pitta triggered a heated multi-player confrontation, Paraguay’s Almiron obscured his mouth with his hand while speaking to Türkiye’s Mert Muldur, who told the referee immediately.
VAR review: A quick review saw Almiron sent off for breaking new IFAB rules.
Paraguay’s Miguel Almirón is sent off with a red card 🟥 pic.twitter.com/adQyHF296s
— FOX Soccer (@FOXSoccer) June 20, 2026
Verdict: A simple one.
The rule — which states “any player covering their mouth in a confrontational situation with an opponent may be sanctioned with a red card” — was brought in to stop potential racist comments being hidden from view, after the recent incident involving Benfica winger Gianluca Prestianni and Real Madrid’s Vinicius Junior in the UEFA Champions League.
A key point is that if the conversation is friendly, then players can do it, but Almiron was clearly considered to be confrontational.
This was a correct intervention by VAR and positive message sent to the soccer world that this action will no longer be tolerated. All players would have spent many meetings discussing the new laws pre-tournament, so why Almiron believed he would escape punishment when he covered his mouth in a confrontational situation is difficult to understand.
United States vs. Australia
Referee: Felix Zwayer
VAR: Bastian Dankert
Time: 43 minutes
Incident: Alex Freeman goal awarded after VAR review amid on-field offside decision
ALEX FREEMAN MAKES IT 2-0 AMERICA! 🇺🇸
The goal is confirmed for the @USMNT after a VAR check! pic.twitter.com/jTGJxaXk52
— FOX Sports (@FOXSports) June 19, 2026
What happened: USMNT’s Sergiño Dest took a shot from the edge of the box, but his attempt was blocked and flew straight up into the air. When it came down, Freeman and Folarin Balogun were already racing to the ball, with Freeman getting their first and nodding it home. However, the linesman signaled for an offside.
VAR review: Replays showed Freeman was onside when Dest took his shot, and the referee allowed the goal to stand.
Verdict: This was the correct intervention for VAR to change the on-field decision. It was not a particularly difficult decision in real-time, and I was surprised that the flag went up in the first instance.
As for Balogun, it seemed the Australia bench believed that the striker impeded goalkeeper Patrick Beach, but that simply wasn’t the case here.
There are two key ways an attacker would be considered to have impacted the GK:
-
They impact the line of vision, or are in a position where they impact the goalkeeper’s ability to judge if the player, who is in an offside position, will become active and play the ball.
-
They physically impact or disrupt the goalkeeper’s ability to do his job.
Balogun did neither in this situation, so there are no grounds to rule out the goal based on the striker’s impact.
Another look at Alex Freeman’s goal for the @USMNT pic.twitter.com/Dg71zHbGox
— FOX Sports (@FOXSports) June 19, 2026
June 18: Canada vs. Qatar
Referee: Cristian Garay
VAR: Juan Lara
Time: 33 minutes
Incident: VAR overturn; penalty changed to free kick and Qatar player sent off on review.
What happened: Qatar defender Homam El Amin was sent off for denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO) when he tripped Canada’s Tajon Buchanan following a VAR intervention. The referee had originally awarded a penalty to Canada and a yellow card to El Amin, but VAR recommended that the original decision be changed to a free kick outside the area and a red card to El Amin.
VAR review: This process was straightforward for the VAR; the trip by El Amin on Buchanan clearly happened outside the penalty area. The obvious advantage for the VAR is the ability to freeze frame the replays to determine the point of contact — a decision far more difficult for the referee in real-time.
Verdict: It was an understandable decision on the field by the referee to award a penalty and a yellow card, as contact was very close to the area. Additionally, with Buchanan falling into the penalty area and everything happening at speed, this would have looked and felt like a penalty in real-time.
VAR correctly changed the decision with a factual intervention, so there was no need for the referee to visit the screen. The change in restart also triggered the change in disciplinary sanction from a yellow to a red card. The recently amended double jeopardy law reflects the attacker’s opportunity to retain the likelihood of scoring from the penalty spot, as opposed to the loss of a likely goal when the restart is a free kick only.
Time: 51 minutes
Incident: VAR overturn; Qatar’s Assim Omer Madibo sent off on review.
What happened: Madibo put in what seemed an innocuous challenge on Canada’s Ismaël Koné; the Qatar player was originally shown a yellow card, but it was upgraded to a red after a VAR intervention. Koné was later found to have broken his leg.
VAR review: Having viewed the replays, the VAR clearly felt uncomfortable with the pictures that showed Koné on the ground, in pain and having likely broken his leg. While in real-time this challenge looked completely innocuous, slow-motion replays showed a secondary action by Madibo that caused the injury to Koné, whose leg was planted on the ground and at a vulnerable angle when contact was made.
The VAR explained the details to referee Cristian Garay and recommended that he upgrade his sanction from yellow to a red. The referee took this action without viewing the replays at the pitch-side monitor. But was this a controversial process?
Verdict: As a referee or a VAR, seeing a player on the ground with a broken leg is a really difficult situation, certainly when any contact felt innocuous in real-time. You have the sinking feeling that you have missed a key action that has caused such an injury.
While the secondary kick by Madibo clearly caused a bad injury, he can feel unfortunate that he ultimately received a red card. I feel it was more due to the outcome as opposed to a serious foul play challenge.
There will be some discussions around the referee upgrading his original decision from a yellow to a red without looking at the screen. However, VAR protocol allows this process to happen in certain circumstances, and the refereeing team on the day felt this situation met the criteria to apply this relatively unknown rule.
Referee: Clement Turpin
VAR: Jerome Brisard
Time: 9th minute
Incident: Penalty to England.
What happened: As Luka Modric shaped to clear the ball from his penalty area, Noni Madueke got his body between the Croatia captain and the ball, and Modric kicked the England player instead of the ball. A penalty kick was awarded by the referee. The resulting penalty was then retaken because of a VAR intervention.
VAR review: Both VAR involvements were relatively straightforward reviews for the VAR. He didn’t take long to confirm the penalty award as the foul was clear.
Harry Kane‘s initial penalty was saved by Dominik Livakovic; however, the VAR stepped in and ordered a retake following encroachment by both the goalkeeper, when making the save, and defender Josko Gvardiol, who became directly involved once the ball had been saved, therefore his encroachment was penalized.
The initial decision to award a penalty kick was checked and cleared by the VAR. Once the original penalty was missed, the VAR ordered a retake because of encroachment by two defending players.
Verdict: A correct on-field decision by the referee to award the penalty, and correctly checked and cleared by the VAR.
Equally, the VAR review for encroachment was a factual decision and no need for the referee to visit the screen.
Interestingly, this law has recently changed. Outfield players are now only penalized for encroachment if they become involved in the second phase of a penalty kick, as in once the ball has been saved by the ‘keeper, it is deemed that the player has gained advantage by entering the penalty area before the ball has been played. Previously, a player was penalized regardless of whether they had a direct impact or not.
1:56
Gomez on South Africa’s red cards: ‘I have no idea what got into them’
Referee: Szymon Marciniak
VAR: Tomasz Kwiatkowski
Time: 30th minute
Incident: Possible red card for tackle by Lionel Messi.
What happened: Lionel Messi tackled Algeria captain Aïssa Mandi in the first half, but seemed to rake his studs along his opponent’s right calf and ankle. But though Marciniak blew for a foul, no card was shown.
VAR review: The challenge was checked and cleared by VAR Kwiatkowski as he did not feel that the on-field referee had made a clear error.
Verdict: Messi’s challenge was unnecessary and he was fortunate that the outcome was not a red card.
When challenging from behind with studs-on-calf contact and a level of force, the outcome should be a red card.
Whether Messi had no intent to foul in this manner is irrelevant; intent is not a consideration in law, and the facts of any contact should be the defining factor.
Messi was lucky as, in my opinion, this was a red card offense. It happened with the score at 1-0 and could have had a big impact on the game. It would have also impacted Messi’s ability to play the rest of the World Cup group games, as a one-match ban could have occurred.
Referee: Alireza Faghani
VAR: Abdullah Atif Abdulrahman Alshehri
Time: 62nd minute
Incident: Possible penalty to France.
What happened: As Kylian Mbappé flew into the Senegal penalty area at speed, Sadio Mané lunged into a late challenge, appearing to catch Mbappé, who went to ground. The referee waved away the appeals and awarded a goal kick. VAR recommended an on-field review for a possible penalty kick.
VAR review: When at the screen, referee Alireza Faghani stuck to his on-field decision of no penalty kick, citing that “the attacker initiated the contact” and therefore no foul challenge had occurred.
Verdict: I am amazed at the referee’s decision to stick with his on-field judgment of no penalty kick. Mané’s challenge was a late lunge, making no contact with the ball, and clearly clipping the left leg of Mbappé, who was moving at speed.
VAR took his time reviewing the replays; however, he was correct in recommending an OFR (On-Field Review). The explanation the referee gave for not awarding the penalty, citing that Mbappé initiated the contact was a poor one, and that may cost this referee any further appointments in the tournament.
Referee: Yael Falcón Pérez
VAR: Juan Lara
Time: 84th minute
Incident: VAR Overturn. Goal awarded to Sweden via a VAR review and use of ‘Connected Ball Tracking technology, with the original on-field decision of offside and no goal overturned.
What happened: Sweden’s Mattias Svanberg scored the fourth goal of the game with his first touch, just 12 seconds after coming off the bench — the fastest goal ever at a World Cup by a substitute — but it was ruled offside.
However, VAR overturned the decision after ruling there was a slight flick on the ball by his teammate Alexander Isak which played Svanberg onside. A decision they reached by using Adidas’ Connected Ball Technology (which is similar to the “snickometer” device used in cricket to tell if a player has hit the ball with their bat.)
(Credit: SVT)
VAR review: The key focus on this review was centered around a potential touch by Isak before the ball reached Svanberg, as this would reset the play and determine if the goal was allowed.
To the naked eye, this was impossible to judge, and the on-field decision of offside looked a credible and correct one. However, VAR are able to use Adidas’ ball tracking technology and the system identified the slightest of touches by Isak, which reset the phase, meaning the goal should stand. Read more
Referee: Said Martínez
VAR: Guillermo Pacheco
Time: 14th minute
Incident: Check for offside on Switzerland’s Remo Freuler before he was brought down by Qatar goalkeeper Mahmoud Abunada for a penalty, which was scored by Breel Embolo.
What happened: FIFA’s new semi-automated offside system did not work in a key moment during Switzerland vs. Qatar.
Freuler looked offside before he was fouled for the penalty that was awarded to put Switzerland 1-0 up, but the VAR had to draw the offside lines to the players and on the pitch themselves.
Around 4½ hours after the incident happened, FIFA released the images, while it also said in a statement: “A brief technical outage prevented the onside animation graphic from being generated ahead of the penalty in the 14th minute.
“The issue was quickly resolved. The workflow of the VAR was not affected by this issue and followed the normal procedure in checking the onfield decision [of onside].
“The lines used by the VAR to check the position of the relevant players did not show the attacking player to be in an offside position in either of the two situations immediately before the penalty decision.”
(Credit: FIFA)
VAR review: There were two checks: The first on Embolo in the buildup, then on Freuler before he was brought down by Qatar goalkeeper Abunada. Neither was deemed offside.
Verdict: Embarrassing for FIFA, and its new technology. We’ll never know what the decision would have been if the semi-automated offside tech had been working. We have to trust the technology was working and applied as FIFA says, but it has once again created huge doubt in the minds of fans.
Referee: Danny Makkelie
VAR: Carlos Del Cerro Grande
Time: 53rd minute
Incident: After originally giving USMNT defender Tim Ream a yellow card, the referee was called to the screen and reissued it to Paraguay’s Miguel Almirón.
After a VAR check for mistaken identity, Miguel Almirón is shown a yellow card 🟨 pic.twitter.com/XeD17F7hnV
— FOX Sports (@FOXSports) June 13, 2026
What happened: Ream, the U.S. team captain, was initially given a yellow card for what appeared to be a careless trip on Paraguay attacker Almirón. However, after the incident was reviewed by VAR and the referee at the screen, it was clear that Ream made no contact with the attacker, and his yellow was rescinded. Almirón received the yellow card for simulation.
VAR review: One of FIFA’s new laws allows VAR to intervene when a player is shown a yellow or red card, but the offense for which the card was shown was committed by another player of either team.
Verdict: When a player clearly deceives the referee, and as a result, an opposing player receives an unfair yellow card, that is a positive addition to the laws. The initial yellow to Ream was an understandable decision in real-time by the referee, but Almirón clearly tries to win a free kick by committing an act of simulation, and his delayed yellow card is justified. This was a good application of the new laws and will hopefully discourage players from diving in these situations.
2:17
Why Ismael Kone is a ‘massive loss’ for Canada
Referee: Wilton Pereira Sampaio
VAR: Nicolás Gallo Barragán
Time: 49 minutes
Incident: Red card to South Africa‘s Sphephelo Sithole for denial of a goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO).
What happened: South Africa were 1-0 down as the second half kicked off, and they were soon down to 10 players when Sithole was shown a red card for bringing down Mexico midfielder Brian Gutiérrez, who was through on goal. The VAR checked the decision and judged it to be correct.
Verdict: Sithole will go down in history as the first player to be shown a red card at this World Cup, and this was a relatively easy decision.
Mexico’s Gutiérrez cut across the South Africa defender and was tripped in the process, causing him to go down. Gutiérrez had a clear opportunity to score with his next action, so the resulting red card was the correct decision.
South Africa is shown a red card and is down to 10 men! 🟥 pic.twitter.com/HnPqExqTRq
— FOX Sports (@FOXSports) June 11, 2026
Time: 84 minutes
Incident: Red card to South Africa’s Themba Zwane for violent conduct for striking an opponent.
What happened: Zwane attempted to move past Mexico’s Roberto Alvarado, but his hand caught Alvarado’s face in the process. The referee did not initially issue a red card, but did so after a VAR review.
Verdict: I felt this was a harsh decision considering the red card was given for “violent conduct/an act of brutality,” and I do not believe this was either.
When you strike an opponent and there is contact to the face, there is a danger that it could be judged as violent conduct, and you run the risk of receiving a red card. Given the amount of time the referee spent at the screen watching replays, though, I do not believe he was completely convinced this was a violent act.
But once at the screen, it would have been a very brave decision not to take the action he did, given the information fed to him by the VAR.
South Africa is down to 9 players after a second red card 🟥 pic.twitter.com/uS87sjfQlI
— FOX Sports (@FOXSports) June 11, 2026
Time: 90+2 minutes
Incident: Red card for Mexico defender César Montes for denial of a goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO).
What happened: South Africa broke in numbers and had four players on three as Khuliso Mudau raced toward the box. Montes got across and clipped him just outside the box, and the referee was quick to show a red card. The VAR reviewed the decision and judged it to be correct.
Verdict: I was surprised by the on-field decision of a red card as I did not feel this was an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
For this to completely meet the threshold of DOGSO, the referee has be sure that the attacker’s next touch is going to be a shot on goal or his direction of play is directly in on goal. In my opinion, this situation did not completely meet the criteria required for a red card. The attacker’s next action was more likely to be a cross to his teammate as opposed to a shot on goal, making this a possible goal-scoring opportunity and not an obvious one.
But I would not expect the VAR to interfere with this decision as it would not be judged as a “clear and obvious” error given the level of subjectivity around the attacker’s next action, whether it be a shot or cross.
César Montes is sent off 🟥
This is the first time 3 players have been shown a red card in a FIFA World Cup opening match pic.twitter.com/GCC20sv3gz
— FOX Sports (@FOXSports) June 11, 2026
