Дэлхийн аварга шалгаруулах тэмцээний шүүгчийн шийдвэрүүд ба улаан хуудасны статистик

There have been 13 red cards in this World Cup, but did the officials get those decisions right?

Mostly, yes, even if a couple were on the harsh side.

The offenders have been found guilty of four different offences under the game’s laws, with most of the debate focusing on those dismissed for tackles deemed so dangerous that the offending player had to be sent off.

Let’s drill deeper into all 13, try to understand the referees’ thinking and establish whether a fair outcome was reached in each case.

Get free access to the most comprehensive World Cup coverage in The Athletic app

Reason for red card: Serious foul play

Assim Madibo (for Qatar vs Canada)

• Referee: Cristian Garay (Chile)
• Referee’s call: Yellow card for reckless play
• VAR’s call: Red card for serious foul play.

Agustin Canobbio (for Uruguay vs Spain)

• Referee: Ismail Elfath (United States)
• Referee’s call: Red card for serious foul play
• VAR’s call: No clear error.

Folarin Balogun (for United States vs Bosnia and Herzegovina)

• Referee: Raphael Claus (Brazil)
• Referee’s call: No offence
• VAR’s call: Red card for serious foul play.

Jarell Quansah (for England vs Mexico)

• Referee: Alireza Faghani (Australia)
• Referee’s call: No offence
• VAR’s call: Red card for serious foul play.

Even those who do not follow football will likely be aware of the row over Folarin Balogun’s red card for the U.S. in their round of 32 match against Bosnia and Herzegovina, while images of Canada’s Ismael Kone in obvious distress after having his leg broken in the group game with Qatar have also been widely shared.

Both these red cards were the result of VAR reviews and were broadly similar from a refereeing perspective but led to widely differing sanctions.

Assim Madibo of Qatar and Balogun appeared to be challenging without malice and the resulting contact with the opposing player appeared incidental and unfortunate. I was not surprised that Madibo received a yellow card or that the referee of the USMNT-Bosnia game decided to play on, as neither tackle stood out as serious foul play.

This is defined in the laws as a tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality. There does not have to be intent to harm — the law is focused on the level of force and the potential for injury — but there is almost always a high level of intensity for a red card to be shown.

Given Kone suffered a particularly nasty leg break, it is hard to argue his safety was not endangered by Madibo, and any VAR who saw that tackle’s consequences would have recommended an upgrade from the initial booking.

But the five-match suspension then imposed on Madibo by FIFA felt over the top, especially when Balogun famously later had his mandatory one-match ban shelved.

I would have defended officials who allowed the pair to stay on the field with a caution to their names, while also empathising with the law’s strict liability and accepted red cards for these challenges. Whatever, both players deserved the same treatment.

The other two incidents here involved tackles in which there was a relatively high level of intensity and a point of contact above the boot. Challenges featuring both those elements should always lead to reds.

Agustin Canobbio of Uruguay is responsible for the worst tackle of this World Cup, and his lunge into Pau Cubarsi of Spain was well identified by American referee Ismail Elfath without the help of VAR.

The challenge by Jarell Quansah against Mexico was not spotted by Alireza Faghani, as from his angle it would have looked a robust but fair sliding tackle from which the Englishman emerged with the ball.

But the replays showed clearly that Quansah’s boot had skimmed off the top of the ball before its studs found the shin of Jesus Gallardo. He rightly walked and should now serve a suspension, notwithstanding the false equivalence of some England fans who have compared Quansah’s tackle with the Balogun one.

Reason for red card: Denial of obvious goalscoring opportunity

Sphephelo Sithole (for South Africa vs Mexico)

• Referee: Wilton Sampaio (Brazil)
• Referee’s call: Red card for denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO)
• VAR’s call: No clear error.

Cesar Montes (for Mexico vs South Africa)

• Referee: Sampaio
• Referee’s call: Yellow card for stopping a promising attack
• VAR’s call: Red card for DOGSO.

Tarik Muharemovic (for Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Switzerland)

• Referee: Joao Pinheiro (Portugal)
• Referee’s call: Red card for DOGSO
• VAR’s call: No clear error.

Homam Ahmed (for Qatar v Canada)

• Referee: Garay
• Referee’s call: Yellow card for DOGSO while challenging for the ball inside the penalty area
• VAR’s call: Red card for DOGSO because the offence was outside the penalty area.

Nathan Ngoy (for Belgium v Iran)

• Referee: Dario Herrera (Argentina)
• Referee’s call: Red card for DOGSO
• VAR’s call: No clear error.

Rebin Sulaka (Iraq v Senegal)

• Referee: Anthony Taylor (England)
• Ref’s call: Yellow card for stopping a promising attack
• VAR’s call: Red card for DOGSO.

Half the tournament’s red cards to date have been for denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity, which referees shorten to the acronym DOGSO.

The principle in the laws here is that players who commit an offence that denies the opposing team a clear chance to score should be sent off.

It is supposed to be a deterrent, as before the regulation was introduced, defenders would deliberately haul down attackers who were through on goal, take the yellow card that followed, and then help defend the resulting free kick with 11 players between ball and goal.

The key word is “obvious”. The question referees ask is: what would have happened next if the offence had not occurred?

If it is only a promising attack, the offending player receives a yellow card. If the attacking team were bound to have a clear chance to score, the sanction should be a red.

These are much more difficult decisions from on the field than via the elevated position afforded by TV cameras.

The referee must judge first whether there has been an offence, before surveying the scene to weigh up multiple considerations, such as the positions of the ball and any other defending players in the vicinity, how fast they are moving and in which direction.

The offences by Sphephelo Sithole, Cesar Montes and Tarik Muharemovic were so clear-cut that the referee sent them off.

Mexico’s Cesar Montes is sent off against South Africa (Nick Potts/PA Images via Getty Images)

Montes was the only player with a thin case to escape the ultimate punishment, as South Africa striker Khuliso Mudau was drifting slightly wide of goal, but it was the correct call. Without the foul, Mudau’s next action would have been an unchallenged shot with only the goalkeeper to beat.

Nathan Ngoy was rightly sent off, even though his offence occurred nearer the halfway line than the goal. There were no other Belgian defenders in the same postal district, so he could have no real complaints.

Rebin Sulaka received only a yellow card on-field, as the referee thought other Iraqi defenders on the cover were close enough to prevent a Senegal shot. But replays convinced the VAR to recommend a review, and the correct outcome was reached.

The most challenging decision involved Homam Ahmed, who initially conceded a penalty and was booked for it. On review, the penalty became a free kick outside the box area and he was sent off.

The law contains a sub-clause that saves players from a dismissal if they are challenging for the ball in the penalty area but inadvertently deny their opponent a clear chance to score. It was felt to be too harsh a sanction to reinstate the obvious goalscoring opportunity by awarding a penalty while also sending off the miscreant when they were making a genuine attempt to win the ball.

The referee’s judgement was that Ahmed had fouled Sadio Mane just inside the box, so he pointed to the spot and gave a yellow card. But replays proved the contact had finished outside the area, so a free kick was awarded at the point of the offence and Ahmed was rightly shown a red card.

Reason for red card: Covering mouth in provocative, derisory or inflammatory manner

Miguel Almiron (for Paraguay v Turkey)

• Referee: Ivan Barton (El Salvador)
• Referee’s call: Unseen incident
• VAR’s call: Red card for covering mouth

Piero Hincapie (for Ecuador v Mexico)

• Referee: Slavko Vincic (Slovenia)
• Referee’s call: Unseen incident
• VAR’s call: Red card for covering mouth

A new law was introduced just before the World Cup to create a sending-off offence of covering their mouth while confronting an opponent. Here’s why.

Many players had got into the habit of hiding their mouths whenever they were speaking to anyone on the field at close quarters.

In most instances, they simply wanted to keep their comments secret, as some media outlets and social media commentators were employing lip-readers to speculate on what was being said. Players were usually sharing tactical plans with team-mates, chatting innocently to opponents or asking the referee a question. Some may have been goading an opponent, but that’s always been part of the game.

However, an incident in the Champions League in February prompted change.

Benfica winger Gianluca Prestianni covered his mouth with his shirt while speaking to Vinicius Junior of Real Madrid. Following a UEFA investigation, Prestianni was found guilty of homophobic conduct and banned for six matches, three of them suspended.

Establishing what was said proved difficult without being able to read Prestianni’s lips, so the game’s lawmakers decided to intervene. It became a red-card offence if a player covers their mouth “when communicating with an opponent in a provocative, derisory or inflammatory manner or situation”.

Two elements of the new law’s wording are pertinent: the accused player covering their mouth must be “provocative, derisory or inflammatory”, and they must be addressing an opponent, not a team-mate.

At the World Cup, Miguel Almiron and Piero Hincapie were the first players to fall foul of this regulation, both after VAR reviews.

Ecuador’s Piero Hincapie was sent off for covering his mouth while speaking to an opponent against Mexico (Francisco Canedo/Xinhua via Getty Images)

Neither was being particularly aggressive, and we do not know what was being said. But that’s not the point: they covered their mouths while speaking to an opposition player, and it is clear from the two VAR interventions that FIFA has decreed that is enough for a red card.

It should be stressed that there have been no accusations levelled at either player about the content of their comments.

The sanctions feel harsh, but football has been plagued by racism, homophobia and other abusive behaviour for years. FIFA and IFAB (the International Football Association Board, the body that manages the laws of the game) hope this regulation will be a deterrent and that players will change their habits.

Reason for red card: Violent conduct

Themba Zwane (for South Africa vs Mexico)

• Referee: Sampaio
• Referee’s call: Unseen incident
• VAR’s call: Red card for violent conduct

This felt harsh. With South Africa chasing the game at 2-0 down in the tournament’s opening match in Mexico City and already down to 10 men, Zwane was partially blocked off by opponent Roberto Alvarado and tried to shake him off as he ran past.

Zwane made contact with his arm across Alvarado’s face, which in slow motion looks much more sinister than in real time. But violent?

Red cards should only be issued to players guilty of using excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball. This felt short of that threshold to me, especially given the high bar for VAR interventions we have seen in most matches at the tournament.