In addition to this, if FIFA or certain referees really are favouring the big players, there still has to be a level of plausible deniability. Portugal didn't even put themselves in a position to be given the benefit of some dubious decisions.
Refereeing/VAR at the World Cup
- Thread starter Annihilate Now!
- Start date
Yeah the issue is the consistency. Problem is certain teams always seem to be on the right side of these 50/50 calls which raises eyebrows. Very similar to how often we complain about Liverpool benefiting in similar ways at club level.
Agreed about the inconsistency - that is by far the biggest issue.
Regarding the part about VAR having a significant positive effect on the amount of referee mistakes - are we so sure about that?
VAR has been effective on correcting glaringly obvious mistakes - but it has also made refereeing worse by asking for "heavy flags", meaning more mistakes are made by design.
And what even is "clear and obvious" anymore?
Read the spoilered translated and unrolled twitter threads below from the Norwegian league for a different perspective, with links to actual articles included.
(The Norwegian league is obviously not the same as the CL og the EPL or whatever, but the point remains the same)
Improving Refereeing Accuracy: A Different Perspective on the Numbers
An 86% accuracy rate is not a particularly flattering headline. However, before drawing conclusions, it is worth examining how the figures are calculated—and whether the same methodology can present a very different picture, without any changes to refereeing or the use of VAR.
According to the VAR report, refereeing accuracy is stated as 86% before VAR, increasing to 97% after VAR. It is also noted that three members of the review panel disagreed with this methodology for calculating accuracy.
According to UEFA, a referee makes approximately 200–250 decisions during a match, including both calls that are made and situations where play is allowed to continue.
Based on the number of matches covered by the report, this corresponds to 35,575 total refereeing decisions.
Of these decisions:
Applying the same approach after VAR intervention produces the following figures:
Viewed across every decision made during a match, accuracy therefore increases from 99.86% without VAR to 99.97% with VAR.
This represents an improvement of 0.11 percentage points, while the system carries an annual operating cost of approximately NOK 18 million.
Expressed differently, the cost equates to approximately NOK 163.6 million per percentage point of improvement in overall refereeing accuracy.
Conversely, if one were to interpret the improvement as an increase from 86% to 97%, applying the same cost ratio would imply a theoretical value of approximately NOK 1.8 billion—around one hundred times the current annual VAR budget.
The key point is that the perceived effectiveness of VAR depends heavily on which set of decisions is used as the basis for measuring accuracy.
When only a relatively small sample of selected incidents is considered, the improvement appears substantial—from 86% to 97%. When every refereeing decision during a match is included, the baseline accuracy is already 99.86%, and the measured improvement from VAR becomes considerably smaller.
Ultimately, the discussion is less about the arithmetic itself than about which methodology provides the most representative picture of refereeing performance.
Link to article in norwegian: https://www.fotballsupporter.no/2024/11/23/hvordan-bedre-dommernes-presisjon-helt-gratis/
An 86% accuracy rate is not a particularly flattering headline. However, before drawing conclusions, it is worth examining how the figures are calculated—and whether the same methodology can present a very different picture, without any changes to refereeing or the use of VAR.
According to the VAR report, refereeing accuracy is stated as 86% before VAR, increasing to 97% after VAR. It is also noted that three members of the review panel disagreed with this methodology for calculating accuracy.
According to UEFA, a referee makes approximately 200–250 decisions during a match, including both calls that are made and situations where play is allowed to continue.
Based on the number of matches covered by the report, this corresponds to 35,575 total refereeing decisions.
Of these decisions:
- 1,442 were reviewed by VAR.
- 349 were subject to a detailed VAR review.
- The report measures refereeing accuracy based on these 349 selected incidents, identifying 49 refereeing errors within that sample.
- 86.0% accuracy based on 349 selected incidents
- 96.6% accuracy based on 1,442 incidents reviewed by VAR
- 99.86% accuracy based on all 35,575 refereeing decisions
Applying the same approach after VAR intervention produces the following figures:
- 97.0% accuracy based on 349 selected incidents
- 99.3% accuracy based on 1,442 incidents reviewed by VAR
- 99.97% accuracy based on all refereeing decisions
Viewed across every decision made during a match, accuracy therefore increases from 99.86% without VAR to 99.97% with VAR.
This represents an improvement of 0.11 percentage points, while the system carries an annual operating cost of approximately NOK 18 million.
Expressed differently, the cost equates to approximately NOK 163.6 million per percentage point of improvement in overall refereeing accuracy.
Conversely, if one were to interpret the improvement as an increase from 86% to 97%, applying the same cost ratio would imply a theoretical value of approximately NOK 1.8 billion—around one hundred times the current annual VAR budget.
The key point is that the perceived effectiveness of VAR depends heavily on which set of decisions is used as the basis for measuring accuracy.
When only a relatively small sample of selected incidents is considered, the improvement appears substantial—from 86% to 97%. When every refereeing decision during a match is included, the baseline accuracy is already 99.86%, and the measured improvement from VAR becomes considerably smaller.
Ultimately, the discussion is less about the arithmetic itself than about which methodology provides the most representative picture of refereeing performance.
Link to article in norwegian: https://www.fotballsupporter.no/2024/11/23/hvordan-bedre-dommernes-presisjon-helt-gratis/
VAR Accuracy Claims: Does the Increase from 86% to 97% Tell the Full Story?
The frequently cited claim that VAR improves refereeing accuracy from 86% to 97% has become a central argument in the ongoing debate. However, it is worth noting that three members of the VAR review panel did not support this methodology, suggesting that the figures may warrant closer examination.
The calculation is based on a single study, which is often presented as a comparison between refereeing accuracy before VAR and after its introduction. A closer look, however, suggests that this characterization may be misleading.
In practice, the methodology primarily measures situations where VAR either:
Following the introduction of VAR, assistant referees have also been instructed to apply "delayed flags" in close situations. This allows attacking phases to continue because VAR cannot review an offense if play has already been stopped.
As a result, the officiating process intentionally permits more potentially incorrect on-field decisions to stand temporarily, with the expectation that VAR will correct them if necessary. This changes how first-instance decisions are recorded and subsequently evaluated.
Another challenge concerns the assumption that every incident has a clear, objective outcome. Many refereeing decisions instead involve significant elements of judgment.
For example:
When VAR recommends changing a decision, the methodology records this as a transition from an incorrect decision to a correct one, awarding full credit to VAR.
However, in many cases the review may simply have shifted the outcome of a genuinely debatable 50–50 decision, rather than correcting an objectively incorrect call.
The report identifies 18 goal decisions that were either awarded or overturned following VAR intervention.
According to this analysis:
This highlights a broader methodological question.
VAR undoubtedly has the ability to correct significant officiating errors. At the same time, it may also introduce new complexities by encouraging greater uncertainty in marginal situations and by reassessing highly subjective decisions.
The overall conclusion therefore depends less on whether VAR changes decisions—which it clearly does—and more on how refereeing accuracy is defined and measured.
An additional consideration is the size of the sample used in the calculation.
The reported 86% accuracy is not based on:
If all 1,442 VAR-reviewed incidents are included instead, the corresponding pre-VAR refereeing accuracy increases to approximately 96.6%.
This illustrates that the headline figures depend heavily on the underlying methodology and the choice of sample used to measure officiating performance.
The frequently cited claim that VAR improves refereeing accuracy from 86% to 97% has become a central argument in the ongoing debate. However, it is worth noting that three members of the VAR review panel did not support this methodology, suggesting that the figures may warrant closer examination.
The calculation is based on a single study, which is often presented as a comparison between refereeing accuracy before VAR and after its introduction. A closer look, however, suggests that this characterization may be misleading.
In practice, the methodology primarily measures situations where VAR either:
- Recommended that the referee overturn an on-field decision; or
- Reviewed an incident and chose not to intervene.
Following the introduction of VAR, assistant referees have also been instructed to apply "delayed flags" in close situations. This allows attacking phases to continue because VAR cannot review an offense if play has already been stopped.
As a result, the officiating process intentionally permits more potentially incorrect on-field decisions to stand temporarily, with the expectation that VAR will correct them if necessary. This changes how first-instance decisions are recorded and subsequently evaluated.
Another challenge concerns the assumption that every incident has a clear, objective outcome. Many refereeing decisions instead involve significant elements of judgment.
For example:
- A penalty decision may realistically be viewed as a 70–30 judgment.
- A handball decision might be closer to 60–40.
- Many other incidents fall somewhere in between.
When VAR recommends changing a decision, the methodology records this as a transition from an incorrect decision to a correct one, awarding full credit to VAR.
However, in many cases the review may simply have shifted the outcome of a genuinely debatable 50–50 decision, rather than correcting an objectively incorrect call.
The report identifies 18 goal decisions that were either awarded or overturned following VAR intervention.
According to this analysis:
- Four of those incidents generated substantial public debate.
- Each involved decisions that could reasonably be interpreted either way or reflected inconsistencies in how similar situations have been officiated across different matches.
This highlights a broader methodological question.
VAR undoubtedly has the ability to correct significant officiating errors. At the same time, it may also introduce new complexities by encouraging greater uncertainty in marginal situations and by reassessing highly subjective decisions.
The overall conclusion therefore depends less on whether VAR changes decisions—which it clearly does—and more on how refereeing accuracy is defined and measured.
An additional consideration is the size of the sample used in the calculation.
The reported 86% accuracy is not based on:
- Every refereeing decision made during a match.
- All 1,442 incidents reviewed by VAR.
If all 1,442 VAR-reviewed incidents are included instead, the corresponding pre-VAR refereeing accuracy increases to approximately 96.6%.
This illustrates that the headline figures depend heavily on the underlying methodology and the choice of sample used to measure officiating performance.
Does the rules say how much time of build up is allowed for refs to get back to it? It was in the build up and only few secs away from Argentina goal the only controversial part is where it happened and its not even controversial since it happened during the build up.
Bottling 2-0 lead with 11mins to stoppage time. All the players where hight on the pitch and its similar to Senegal vs Belguim scenario. But its easier to blame it on the ref. Accountability!
I’d argue there was a clear penalty on McGinn from the Moroccan defender as well as an arguable red against their defender when Adams was clear on goal.
Didn’t see the Scottish bench doing “X’s” and crying corruption there.
Can you find a similar example to the Argentina - Egypt decision where VAR got involved and overturned the goal? Becuase the Porutgal - Uzbekistan example is not at all similar. Which was the entire point.
I can on the other hand find at least two very similar instances that VAR didn't call back, one involving Argentina in a different game, and one involving Brazil.
(Again, not saying this is proof of any corruption, it is proof of VAR being massively inconsistent, and that this exact decision is the only one I can think of this World Cup that has been officiated that way, with several examples of similar situation being handled differently)
Are people complaining about Egypt's ruled out goal? The foul is obviously not intentional, but it has a massive impact on the rest of that play - by the nature of the fact that Argentina's CB was left stranded in the opposition corner while Egypt benefitted from a clear break.
For me it's more just the principle of that happening in the game. Either give the foul or don't. It's not clear and obvious enough to be going so far back and ruling out. Letting a team attack for ages then score, celebrate thinking they've scored and then taking it away is absolutely ridiculous. It's genuinely set people's enjoyment of the game back so much - surely not what VAR was intended for.
Actually very similar to how people used to complain about us when we were winning everything. Funny that.
Ages? Its 15 seconds
Its a clear foul on Martinez, same phase of play. No brainer to disallow
The problem with VAR was always obvious from the outset, as soon as you let that genie out of the bottle, the inevitable endpoint is that all decisions will be checked by VAR. Even if your intention is to only use it for "critical moments" or errors, simple cause and effect means there's no end point to that.
A striker scores a goal from a corner. That's a critical moment, so that gets checked. But should it have been a corner in the first place? So that gets checked. But the corner came when the defender put it out clearing a free kick, so was that the correct decision? So that gets checked too. But was that a push 10 seconds before the first free kick was conceded, which would make it a foul the other way? So that gets checked as well. And so on.
The authorities can set a limit in terms of time or phases if the want, but every time there's a contentious decision that would have been overturned had VAR been involved, someone is going to shout about it so loudly that inevitably its going to be stretched further and further back in chain of events.
A striker scores a goal from a corner. That's a critical moment, so that gets checked. But should it have been a corner in the first place? So that gets checked. But the corner came when the defender put it out clearing a free kick, so was that the correct decision? So that gets checked too. But was that a push 10 seconds before the first free kick was conceded, which would make it a foul the other way? So that gets checked as well. And so on.
The authorities can set a limit in terms of time or phases if the want, but every time there's a contentious decision that would have been overturned had VAR been involved, someone is going to shout about it so loudly that inevitably its going to be stretched further and further back in chain of events.
You can apply this logic to any VAR decision. Either give the penalty or don't. Either wave offside or don't. The whole premise of VAR is to correct refereeing decisions made in real time.
I guess you could take away the power of VAR to correct for fouls made in the build-up. I wouldn't be opposed to that. Actually I think the single VAR decision that has ever pissed me off the most was that Cavani goal that was ruled out after McTominay lightly brushed Son's cheek. But with the current rules it was right to disallow it. And as others have pointed out, the goal was scored 15 seconds and 2 passes after the foul. The goalscoring sequence followed directly after the foul.
Is it a goal within the rules yes? Is it consistent? No. I agree with you there. It has been the case with every winner. Arsenal not receiving any red card or a penalty all season this season is diabolical, EPL fans spent very little to no time complaining about it and eventually gave all credit to Arsenal.
We used to get hammered during our winning seasons by PL fans by being the favorites, it still did not take away anything from what we achieved. It’s part of the game. Football conspiracy has always been there.
Ronaldo fans are fueling the fire all over the internet. I cant wait to the see the back of Messi and Ronaldo so we can watch proper football without their fanboys calling out every decision and coming up with weird conspiracies.
No, it's a soft foul that happened way before the goal was scored. Completely different. Even though I get what you're saying of course.
This is the only one that is an actual claim. The disallowed goal was completely fine, the salah no penalty was also fine. This would be soft but it's braindead from Mac Allister and it is a penalty.
Massive credit to Argentina for turning it around - great stuff.
Massive criticism to Egypt for bottling a 2-0 lead with 10 minutes to go, and not even making to extra time.
Massive credit to Arsenal for a great season.
Massive credit to us for a great 25 year run.
No mentioning Messi.
No mentioning Ronaldo (why would anyone?!)
This VAR decision can still feck right off. Throw it in the bin. Kill it with fire. Massive criticism.
It's part of the game (some times, but more often it is not. It just chose to get involved this time, but not the two other glaringly similar times. Because reasons)
It shouldn't be part of the game.
Yes. It was a free kick.
Yes, you can defend the decision.
You could also defend not pulling the game back.
50/50 decisions etc - but before this game it was 100% rate of not pulling the game back for very similar infringements in the build up.
So now it's a 66,6/33,3 decision? Feck right off.
"Way before" is just not correct. It directly leads to the counter-attack they score from. It's not like they maintained possession for a minute or two after the foul and then scored. Like I said it's 15 seconds and 2 passes.
I would much rather argue "clear and obvious", but then again I think the step on the foot is pretty clear.
I think it’s fairly soft, but one of those that might be given if the ball is actually played towards them.
Agree totally inconsistent. Not the first time it happens and guess not the last time it happens. We are used to watching EPL every week with the same refs. Stupid calls every week and also consistency with bias too. We are used to stupid calls not going through our way, in the world cup we have referees from all over the world so many of these calls are just way inconsistent to what we are used to. Not even consistent with the world cup itself. US red card vs Bosnia is something we dont see in EPL but happened in UCL with Rashford vs Copenhagen. Same thing with studs up. No red cards with like 6 incidents so far in the world cup while United received two that have been so much lighter (uncle Case when his foot slipped from the ball and Bruno vs Tottenham, both were comical). I can call 4 or 5 incidents last season where if refs called it right we should have been on a title run. We were easily robbed 6 points at least from VAR. Take Burnley and Bournemouth for example that’s 4 points unfairly taken away from two games only.
Reason I’m bringing this up is it’s a huge part of the game and ‘Ronaldo Messi’ has to be in this conversation. WC is bringing millions of casual fans that only hate watched 3 games a year and have no favorite team around this game and all they do is pushing narratives and agenda around this tournament.
Those are good points and I enjoyed the read. But to be honest, we can discuss the methodology of the study as we please but in the end, the points being made here are missing the point if the question being asked is whether or not to keep VAR. In the end, the members of the review panel don't seem to disagree over the question whether or not video assistence made refereeing more accurate but how much more accurate it has become. And that's just logical. I don't need a review of the methodology to know that offside calls at the minimum have become more accurate. Additionally, you also see every once in a while how disastrous refereeing without video assistence actually is. In the early cup rounds in Germany, there were decisive refereeing mistakes in ~30% of matches if I remember it correctly. And that's the closest thing to an A/B test we have.
Anyway, since I'm into methodology, a quick opinion on the reviewed numbers: Between selected incidents, reviewed incidents and all decisions, selected incidents is, in my opinion, the database to go with because with regards to VAR, it doesn't matter if outballs or midfield fouls are given correctly. However, ideally you'd include situations which should have been reviewed/selected as well. It could also make sense to exclude (or count them as errors) incidents in which VAR overstepped its authority and intervened although it was no clear decision at all. But as said, this is more about the question how much did it improve the quality of refereeing and not whether or not it did make it more accurate.
I'm all for VAR on offsides - that has improved dramatically, and is a black/white decision.
I'm all for goal line technology. Again, black/white
I'm also (almost) all for VAR intervening in blatant red card offenses and _maybe_ clear and obvious pens (or non-pens given as pens).
Free kicks 17 seconds and/or 90 meters away from goal is something else entirely. We see those not given all the time without VAR intervention, in all leagues, and in this very world cup.
Actually, as has been pointed out, this is likely the first instance VAR got involved in a situation like this in this WC, even though it's (at least) the third time it's happened.
Using VAR this time is asking for trouble, discussion, and cries about corruption and bias (which I even think is very, very understandable). Not understanding the outrage is as dumb as the tin foil narrative.
(Not saying you are, but there are plenty of people in this thread defending the decision "because it was akchyuachally a free kick, I don't understand the outrage at all because it was RIGHT")
I like that the level of physicality has been raised at this WC and that we’ve had far fewer fouls, yellow cards and penalties given for minimal contact or players going down too easily, often even before any contact is made.
However I don’t really like the way VAR is being deployed. It feels arbitrary, especially in cases where they check for fouls in the build-up to a goal.
Brazil’s goal vs Scotland and Germany’s goal vs Paraguay were both ruled out for very slight contact and I don’t think VAR should have intervened in either case. I’m also not a fan of VAR disallowing Egypt’s goal against Argentina. At the same time Germany’s goal vs Ecuador was allowed to stand despite a Germany player clearly hitting an Ecuadorian player in the head.
Now imagine that, in the England-Ghana match, the Konsa foul on the Ghanaian player had happened in the build-up to an England goal. It would have been overturned 100%, yet it wasn’t even checked for a penalty.
So VAR referees can have a huge impact on the game simply by picking and choosing which incidents they want to show to the ref. I don’t think it should work like that. I think each manager should have the right to challenge any referee’s decision using VAR, say, once per half. It won’t remove bias or inconsistency, but at least teams would have the right to appeal what they believe is an outrageous injustice.
However I don’t really like the way VAR is being deployed. It feels arbitrary, especially in cases where they check for fouls in the build-up to a goal.
Brazil’s goal vs Scotland and Germany’s goal vs Paraguay were both ruled out for very slight contact and I don’t think VAR should have intervened in either case. I’m also not a fan of VAR disallowing Egypt’s goal against Argentina. At the same time Germany’s goal vs Ecuador was allowed to stand despite a Germany player clearly hitting an Ecuadorian player in the head.
Now imagine that, in the England-Ghana match, the Konsa foul on the Ghanaian player had happened in the build-up to an England goal. It would have been overturned 100%, yet it wasn’t even checked for a penalty.
So VAR referees can have a huge impact on the game simply by picking and choosing which incidents they want to show to the ref. I don’t think it should work like that. I think each manager should have the right to challenge any referee’s decision using VAR, say, once per half. It won’t remove bias or inconsistency, but at least teams would have the right to appeal what they believe is an outrageous injustice.
Egypt want officials kicked out of World Cup
The Egyptian Football Association says it has asked Fifa to kick the officials in charge of their World Cup last-16 defeat by Argentina out of the tournament.
The EFA said it had lodged a complaint with football's world governing body and wants an investigation into "double standards" of officiating in the game in Atlanta.
An EFA statement read: "Hany Abou Rida, president of the Egyptian football federation, filed a complaint with Fifa, demanding an investigation into the French referee Francois Letexier after the serious refereeing mistakes committed by the team of referees and double standards, which caused the Egypt team to lose the match and leave the World Cup."
The EFA has called for an investigation of the team of referees and video technology referees after what it said were "blatant errors and insisting on not reviewing some of the footage".
It "demanded the exclusion of the referee and the entire crew from the World Cup after investigating these mistakes" and alleged "the crime of discrimination against the Egyptian national team".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c5yzdd070r3o
Agree with every word.
Also regarding challenges - lose a challenge = lose a sub.
No subs left? No challenges.
Leave it to the head coach and/or captain to choose which situations they are sure enough about to risk losing a sub over.
Now, with 5 (or even 6) subs, this should be a no brainer, and removes the "getting involved arbitrarily" debate
I am, though
For me, it was a clear foul on Martinez, clearly no foul on Salah and and clearly no foul from Mac Allister. And as said, i also think that a foul to initiate the counter should be enough for VAR intervention. Shouldn't matter where that foul happened if it is decisive. However, I definitely understand the frustration, that's just human nature. What I don't understand, though, is the conspiracy theories. That has nothing to do with FIFA but with the Cristiano Ronaldo fandom. Every referee call in favor of Argentina is rigged these days, let alone a questionable call (like Messi not getting sent off). Meanwhile, nothing happens when Argentina is on the receiving end. Gregoritsch hit De Paul in a very similar fashion to Messi's challenge just one or two matches later and there have been next to no mentions of that because it won't generate any clicks. It's honestly insane what happens in social media channels these days. CR7 supporters have become a bit like MAGA.Just for clarification, I'm not saying that you're like this. I think your criticism of VAR is genuine, your arguments are valid and I can relate to them to an extent. But coincidently, you happen to be on the side of a lot of very delusional folks on this one.
I am, though
Just for clarification, I'm not saying that you're like this. I think your criticism of VAR is genuine, your arguments are valid and I can relate to them to an extent. But coincidently, you happen to be on the side of a lot of very delusional folks on this one.
Well, feck you then!
(not really)The other situations you mention here (Salah, Mac) I agree are fine no calls, 100%.
Where (and when) the foul happened should matter a lot, though. I think this is where we disagree. And there has to be some consistency to when VAR gets involved.
Because up until yesterday, VAR was consistently NOT getting involved - actually in 100% of the comparable situations they chose to play on/ trust the ref on the pitch.
Then the resulting outrage when they decide to suddenly have a look and overturn it should surprise exactly no one.
Imagine any team losing gracefully anymore.
Absolute bunch of cry babies everywhere.
Absolute bunch of cry babies everywhere.
You can say the same about the Mac Allister pull which is a clear penalty and right after Argentina score. There is no grand conspiracy but its pretty clear that every single 50/50 went Argentinas way.
Ah yes a clear penalty where a pull on a shirt causes the player to go down in the opposite direction and look like he's been shot. Would have been soft as feck.
I seen some mad stat earlier, England get a yellow card every 7 fouls... Argentina are something like 22 fouls per yellow card
The door is open now. You're going to see much more of this stuff in the PL this season.
Ah yes a clear penalty where a pull on a shirt causes the player to go down in the opposite direction and look like he's been shot. Would have been soft as feck.
I seen some mad stat earlier, England get a yellow card every 7 fouls... Argentina are something like 22 fouls per yellow card
It would have been incredibly soft but the ref put down a super soft line, at least for the Egyptians. I was rooting for Argentina but I can absolutely understand why the Egypt team feel like they where playing with a different ruleset.
Yes good post. VAR is with us to stay, warts and all. I don't particularly like it because it has taken away the sheer joy of celebrating a goal, which is the primary objective of the game.
And can you remember that just before the WC, we were told that manhandling an opponent just before a corner was to be punished. That didn't happen.
But easily the worst thing are the so called Hydration Breaks which have simply become coaching opportunities. And many players don't even take a drink.
It's really not a clear penalty for me. Every time I see these clips that are supposed to show a foul, I can't find it. There's not enough for him to fall over like that. If it was given, you'd have everyone calling for VARs head because of how soft it is.
Anyway, these decisions can be discussed until the end of time. It's already getting boring, and people are not going to change their minds anyway.
We both share a huge dislike of VAR it seems, for most of the same reasons.
Tbh I trust the righteousness of most of the referees far, far more than that of the FIFA higher-ups. For every mistaken decision in favour of a particular team in this WC, I think I can find a mistake favorizing the other team in the same match even. The most striking event of the Balogun case, it’s notable that the VAR referees actually made a huge and serious mistake going against both the home nation, their biggest profile in the game and the Trump/Infantino love affair.
But refs make mistakes, sometimes continuous one’s, often for human reason, and VAR doesn’t help that, it seemingly only exacerbates it. So feck VAR.
When VAR is there, I still think the refs in the VAR room should do their best to use it consistently by the guidelines. The guideline is that to call for a review of a foul before a goal, the effect of a foul should be in the build-up to the goal, even down to how the attacking team aquired the ball from open play. Thus the use of VAR to review the foul on Martinez was clearly within the guidelines, as Egypt aquired the ball ahead of the goal by fouling him, and the attacking team went directly from the foul to the goal opportunity in one build-up sequence. Fouling the CB when high up the pitch and scoring in the space left in his absence should only aggravate that IMO. So as long as VAR is as it is, I think that was the right call by both VAR-ref and match ref.
The other question many pose, about consistency, is more relevant,, but tbh I haven’t seen many other clear examples in this WC that qualifies given the guidelines. I’m happy to be proven wrong though.
You’re clearly clueless about the Arab world
If this was given as a penalty all the people saying how ridiculous it is that VAR disallowed Egypts goal woud presumably be saying it was a travesty that VAR had intervened for such a nothing incident made to look worse from one angle in slow motion? Its much much softer than the foul on Martinez so it isnt even a case of two wrongs make a right. Its literally just 'underdog shouldnt be punished against World Champions' which i suspect is whats driving a lot of the emotions here....and i get it, but still
...
Also people saying theres no precedent....there was a goal ruled out last week for somethihg similar wasnt there? Uzbekistan vs Portugal. You cant say its that massively inconsistent when another group of officials have done a similar thing within a week. And theres absolutely been calls like that in the PL since VAR came in.
Once again, Id rather we not have VAR personally too, but the more people argue this, the more clear it is its an entirely emotional argument. Its just bad vibes.
Last edited:
I saw that episode, and I can’t really agree with you there. It would be possible to call an offence there, but it was much less, more dubious as to the effect and less central to the ball. My claim is that less than one in twenty refs would call a foul in the box for that, or deem it as part of the build up. Calling that and the double foul on Martinez ‘two 50/50 calls’ Or similar seems unfounded to me.
I dunno. I found it a lot more pleasurable watching non-VAR championship football, with all its ref errors, than watching prem football with all the VAR delays.