Expect the unexpected (decision)?

A look at some of the most controversial incidents from the group stages of FIFA World Cup 2026. 

Four of the most widely-discussed individual episodes so far in the excellent, twenty-third World Cup all had one thing in common - in my own personal interpretation, I had considered that the referees decided actually quite well, but the vast majority of the football world thought the opposite. Clearly, only one part of that is relevant! My feeling is that something is going a little wrong in the evaluation of foul challenges among the thirty-strong video match officials crew, but different facts should not be confused. 

I wanted to especially highlight four calls to underline this. Firstly, already outlined is an interpretation of the OFR conducted in France-Senegal (link here). Since that post was published FIFA have, in the form of a The Athletic article, confirmed that they did not consider Faghani to have made a clear mistake in awarding a goalkick (ie not a penalty) after the on-field review, which was itself mandatory. 

It doesn't seem difficult to guess though that the actual process of the decision does not display the main VAR, Abdullah Al-Shehri, in the best light: having VAR-ed two of the first twenty games in the group stage, after France-Senegal, Al-Shehri stood only as support VAR in four matches and assistant VAR in one further match; Al-Shehri has not stood as main VAR since France-Senegal, and one doesn't imagine that this will change in the knockout stage. 

Talking holistically, FIFA's interpretation mirrors what I predicted it would be in the Law5 piece, but one can't help but ask, 'wouldn't it have just been so much easier to award the foul?'. 

Three incidents in later matches fell into exactly the same category:


2) Penalty area incident in Argentina-Austria (minute 4)

This incident is the exception among the four - after an on-field review initiated by the Qatari VAR, Khamis Al-Marri, a penalty kick was awarded for what was ruled as a careless foul by Austria no5. Upon scrutinising the footage, I am genuinely not convinced that a foul challenge has (actually) occurred: 

• Austria no4 makes a successful tackle on the ball, by getting his foot in front of Argentina no22's

• then, a trifling contact between Austria no5 and Argentina no22 occurs, which should not be deemed as careless, given that neither of those players has the ball under their spell at that stage

• then finally, Austria no5 plays the ball successfully, pushing the ball away with his outstep

However, none of that really matters - a penalty kick was the expected outcome, and while it was delivered admittedly after a period of probably excessive deliberation, (K.) Al-Marri came to a conclusion that can be widely judged as correct. Surely, it isn't difficult to guess that FIFA would deem that ruling as correct too. 

This being said, Al-Marri's ruling stands in opposition to another made forty-eight hours later.

3) Penalty area incident in England-Ghana (minute 79)

Unlike most people, I thought this incident was correctly solved by the officials. 

England no2 made a last-ditch attempt to block the ball - he has jumped into the space ahead of Ghana no25 and the ball, and if you follow where he would have landed, England no2 would have been successful in that block, able to push the ball away with his outstep. Ghana no25, although it looked absolutely the opposite to most people, did not really have the ball in his 'spell' anymore when his left knee came up and met England no2's right thigh. 

If you were wondering why the Ghana player does not appeal for a penalty, it is because he instinctively 'knows' (without being able to put it to words) that it isn't a penalty, in the strictest technical terms!

A big however is coming though. While I stand by my own personal view, it is hardly the job of the biggest sporting event to satiate the lesser of the two administrators on a niche forum/blog. If the VAR, Armando Villarreal, had intervened and a penalty kick been awarded, the wide reaction would have been "maybe England no2 was unlucky, but he made a risky tackle and was deservedly punished" (ie, the same as for the penalty awarded to Argentina vs. Austria). 

Now that Villarreal didn't intervene, the close-up replay is widely circulated on social media, beneath comments that (roughly speaking) go "is the VAR of England-Ghana blind?!". 

Even in technical terms, I would also be quite firm: it was more of a foul in England-Ghana than it was in Argentina-Austria; it is absolutely inconsistent to intervene on the 'softer' of the two incidents and creates lots of uncertainty and confusion amongst refereeing people, let alone normal fans. Perhaps, this affair also helped author another controversial episode, which followed two days circa this game.

4) Potential APP foul prior to goal in Ecuador-Germany (minute 2)

Perhaps surprisingly to some people, I felt that the officials (just like England-Ghana) had actually solved this incident correctly. 

Germany no5 had successfully played the ball, albeit at a significant height, in a fair manner. Ecuador no15's head and Germany no5's foot, with the latter bringing his leg down after a successful action, meet in the middle. Ecuador no15 is 'later' to the duel, and Germany no5's actions do not "prevent a nearby opponent from playing the ball for fear of injury", as per Law12. In my own personal opinion the VAR, Joseph Dickerson, solved this incident correctly. However, I would say this:

The big problem for this incident is how it was perceived. It wasn't exactly clear what had happened from the live sequence, but the first reaction of most people (myself included actually) was 'it looks like a foul'. For most people, thanks not only to primacy bias, the replays seemed to support that fact. The replays shown later, after the goal had been awarded and play restarted, gave the best evidence for a 'play on' ruling - but by then, most people would have already made up their mind (indeed: it is the reason that the criticism for this overall performance was a little excessive relative to what actually had happened).

Given that Ecuador were ultimately able to win, I think that takes the heat off this episode a little bit. However, I can easily imagine that this incident was 'a step too far' for FIFA, and given that in the end it was immaterial for the result, it isn't difficult to guess that this scene will be assessed critically.

—————————————————————————————————————

The mantra for key match incidents at big tournaments is very clear - 'make the decision that is widely expected'. The failure to do so in three, now widely-criticised, key incidents is actually very noteworthy from my point of view - that a multiple number of officials were handed 'low-hanging fruit' and refused to take it and suggests to me that something is going a bit wrong at the tournament.

I think in other regards, perhaps some people have 'added two and two together to get five'. One should remember that the FIFA approach to VAR is still different to UEFA's more minimalist approach with the technology, even if the gap between them has decreased on the latter's side in more recent years; the intervention in USA-Paraguay (and apparently quite relaxed ruling on the questionable manner in which it was taken from the VMO perspective) should underline this rather plainly!

The approach to refuse awarding soft penalties is completely consistent with the Arab Cup in 2025. The only difference is that unlike at that tournament, the match directors (who come from around the world and are selected for matches by FIFA in a manner not dissimilar to the referees) have quite evidently been told to take an extremely conservative approach to showing replays of certain incidents. 

A good example of one such play is the penalty area incident early in France-Iraq, of which no replays were shown, but that the VARs checked carefully before giving the referee clearance to later restart the game:

This should also be set apart, in my opinion, from incidents like the first goal in Argentina-Austria (correct on-field no foul decision ratified by the VMOs) and the disallowed goal in Scotland-Brazil (clear action by Vinicius which stopped the Scotland defender from kicking the ball; it was not in playing distance for the Brazilian and only with a second-motion was he able to gain possession and score the goal). 

Unlike the incidents to which I linked video clips in the matches 25-40 analysis post (link here), I would not include the Argentina-Austria and Scotland-Brazil situations respectively in criticism of the VAR-ing at this World Cup. The intervention in Ramos' match may feel incongruous to the approach of both the match directors and the referees themselves, but any confusion on that part stems from, in my opinion, the specific actions of one referee and two VMO crews among the four incidents that I have detailed above.

But now, the really key matches will begin. So, perhaps the biggest overall question from the first games in this tournament: can we continue to 'expect the unexpected' in terms of some big decisions, or will the approach be somewhat reset in the knockout stages. We will see!