After England’s victory over Mexico, Thomas Tuchel expressed disappointment with the World Cup refereeing, labeling it as inconsistent and inadequate. His statements struck me as an instance of reverse psychology; overall, referees have performed reasonably well, making commendable calls amid some errors. Like all officials, referees are prone to mistakes.
Egypt voiced grievances following their match against Argentina, claiming unfair treatment. However, the decision to disallow one of their goals while allowing Argentina’s winner was justified. The disallowed goal stemmed from a foul committed by Marwan Attia on Lisandro Martínez, involving a shirt pull and contact with Martínez’s right foot.
Crucially, the ball maintained forward momentum without any lateral or backward passes until it ended up in the net, which could have been a standout goal of the tournament. The ruling to disallow it was indeed the correct call.
In the case of Argentina’s late third goal, Egypt argued that Julián Alvarez fouled Mohamed Salah. Observers are drawing parallels between this incident and the previous one due to similar contact, but the scenarios differ. Alvarez played the ball first, and the subsequent minor contact did not constitute a foul or warrant a VAR review.
VAR played a pivotal role in the match between Mexico and England, where Jarell Quansah’s tackle on Jesús Gallardo warranted a red card. It was surprising that referee Alireza Faghani did not identify this infraction on the field. The VAR’s recommendation for a review led to the correct decision being made.
Tuchel expressed frustration over several decisions during that game. The referee faced a challenging task, given the pre-match hype, weather conditions, and the venue’s atmosphere at the Azteca Stadium. Some players contributed to the chaos by feigning injuries, dissenting, and questioning nearly every call, leading to a volatile situation when the Quansah challenge unfolded.
England’s consideration of an appeal against Quansah’s red card has raised eyebrows, particularly in light of the Folarin Balogun incident, which altered the landscape. Traditionally, appeals for red cards in tournaments were not permitted, with an automatic one-match suspension enforced. The revelation of Article 27 of FIFA’s disciplinary code, which FIFA claims was utilized to suspend the USA striker’s penalty, caught many off guard.
Balogun’s sending-off was justified, especially with VAR’s assistance. Initially, I was uncertain whether his challenge on Tarik Muharemovic of Bosnia and Herzegovina warranted a red card, but a review confirmed it was indeed a foul, despite the absence of any malicious intent. The decisive factor was the position of the ball, which was not within a playable range.
Commentary from figures like Donald Trump, alongside Tuchel’s remarks, has amplified the noise surrounding refereeing. Referees must focus on their duties and disregard external pressures. In elite officiating, sports psychologists are available to assist. Personally, I found it challenging to move past a poor decision, as it would linger in my mind for several days; however, that differs from allowing it to affect performance. Remaining focused on the present is essential.
This World Cup has seen 13 red cards issued, compared to just four in each of the last two tournaments, yet I believe there are few grounds for complaint. Player safety remains the top priority, and both Quansah and Balogun exemplify the boundaries that need to be established. VAR has been effectively employed to address red cards that were overlooked during matches.
However, it’s important to note that VAR decisions have not been flawless. For instance, Vinícius Júnior’s disallowed goal for Brazil against Scotland was one instance where I felt the on-field decision to award the goal was justified. The contact was minimal, and not all contact counts as a foul, as contact is part of the game. This did not constitute a clear and obvious error by the referee.
In such cases, a “check complete” should suffice, and there’s no need for re-refereeing. I also believed that Harry Kane deserved a penalty against the Democratic Republic of the Congo after being contacted by goalkeeper Lionel Mpasi. Nonetheless, since it was not deemed a clear and obvious mistake, the video assistant’s choice to uphold the referee’s original decision was appropriate.
VAR was correctly utilized to award France a penalty after a foul on Désiré Doué by Paraguay’s Diego Gómez, which surprised me as the on-field referee, Ilgiz Tantashev, did not call it at the moment.
The match presented another challenging situation for the referee, who needed to assert more authority. I was taken aback that no Paraguay players received cautions. Referees aim to manage games, but there are instances where issuing cards is necessary. Tantashev should have shown yellow cards for several infractions, as his reluctance to do so emboldened Paraguay, jeopardizing his control over the match.
FIFA has evidently adjusted its VAR approach, establishing a high bar for intervention similar to practices seen in the Premier League. Observing the different refereeing styles from various countries and confederations has been intriguing. Nevertheless, certain fouls are universally recognized, which is why I was astonished when Leroy Sané’s goal for Germany against Ecuador stood, despite Aleksandar Pavlovic kicking Pedro Vite in the head. Normally, VAR checks attacking possession phases when a goal is scored, and in my view, that should have been ruled a foul.
Pavlovic’s boot was higher than Declan Rice’s when the England midfielder received an early booking during the Mexico game. The only explanation I can think of is that both the video assistant and the referee felt it was a matter of “six and two threes”—that Vite had lowered his head and that Pavlovic had raised his boot, which meant it didn’t meet the necessary threshold for a foul.
Chris Foy is a former Premier League referee.
- World Cup 2026
- Referees
- Laws of football
- World Cup
- analysis
