VAR-ын асуудал 2026 оны Дэлхийн аварга шалгаруулах тэмцээнийг бүрхлээ

The use of video technology was all over the place at the 2026 World Cup and a major review is needed to clarify what FIFA is trying to achieve with it.

A complete lack of clarity and consistency on what constituted the line for video assistant referee intervention dogged the tournament from its opening game, when the review team recommended a red card — one of three dismissals in that match between Mexico and South Africa.

Football’s global governing body must decide whether it wants VAR to be reserved for irrefutable consequential errors, as originally devised, or continue down the road of ever-more interference in pursuit of ‘perfect’ outcomes that are often far from that.

There are lessons for the Premier League, and other club competitions around the world, to learn from the officiating we’ve seen over these past six weeks in the United States, Canada and Mexico.

For example, video officials have been overturning yellow cards, checking corners and rewinding the tapes further than ever after an apparent goal is scored, so goodness knows where it will end. Many predicted this sort of mission-creep when VAR was in its infancy, and those warnings have proven well-founded.

At the World Cup, there were at least six examples of incorrect or — to be generous — highly dubious interventions that made reasonable on-field decisions worse across the 104 matches.

Contrast that with the Premier League, in which there were three such errors in the 380 games last season, only one of which materially affected a match result. That came in the Chelsea-Fulham game at Stamford Bridge in August, where a goal was disallowed when a home player accidentally stood on an opponent’s foot in the build-up. The VAR’s decision was treated with derision in England at the time, yet lesser offences in the World Cup saw both Egypt and Spain have knockout-phase goals chalked off against Argentina.

Over these six weeks, the standard of on-field refereeing was predictably unpredictable, given the wide range of views that exist in different countries on what constitutes a foul, caution or red card. The game’s laws are vague and open to interpretation, making such inconsistency across the planet inevitable.

Referees did their best to keep games flowing, supported by new rules to speed up throw-ins and other restarts. This is an area where the Premier League could take note as it worked well, even if the drive for continuity was then disrupted by the mid-half hydration breaks (something I imagine nobody will be pushing to be introduced in domestic leagues).

But the scattergun decisions emerging from the VAR centre in Dallas led to goals being disallowed for minor ‘offences’ that would never lead to the award of a penalty had the players’ roles been reversed. There have always been different thresholds for attacking and defensive fouls, and understandably so, but the gap has become too wide, and VAR is making it worse.

Some important, correct interventions should be acknowledged, including the penalty awarded to France against Paraguay and the red card for Jarell Quansah in England’s match with Mexico.

The technology used to establish factual decisions proved effective, notwithstanding the complaints from Croatia and Norway about whether the ball had indeed brushed a strand of hair against Portugal or hit an overhead cable against England.

Routine offside decisions were cleared up quickly, except for one aberration in Switzerland vs Qatar, and for once there were no major handball controversies. Sometimes the speed of offside decisions can cause confusion and frustration in the Premier League, while handball decisions have also led to controversy, so these too would be areas for the English top flight to study.

The furore over Folarin Balogun’s red card for the United States against Bosnia and Herzegovina was primarily focused on whether he would serve a suspension for it but started with a decision that deserves calm debate now the tournament is over.

Do we want to see players sent off for accidentally injuring or endangering the safety of an opponent, when it is clear they are innocently competing for the ball? It doesn’t feel right to me, especially when deliberate foul play sometimes leads only to a free kick.

FIFA’s position is unclear, given Balogun was let off his ban two weeks after Assim Madibo of Qatar was given a five-match suspension for a similarly inadvertent tackle against Canada that broke Ismael Kone’s leg.

As it showed with the Balogun suspension, FIFA retains the right to make up rules as it goes along. Another example came in the United States’ opening match with Paraguay, when the VAR protocol on mistaken identity was rewritten in real time by the match officials.

Everyone was happy to see Tim Ream excused his yellow card and Miguel Almiron cautioned for diving, including me. Similarly, there were few complaints from neutrals when the already-booked Breel Embolo of Switzerland got his comeuppance for the latter offence against Argentina. But with the precedent now set, it will be difficult to turn back, and the inevitable consequence will be every yellow card being checked, not only those handed out wrongly when an opponent has dived.

Further, in the Ream/Almiron incident, play had restarted before the cards were switched, opening up the possibility of similar VAR interventions at any given time.

The solution to me seems obvious: follow other sports by introducing a challenge system, so it is left to head coaches and managers to decide quickly what is ‘clear and obvious’.

We would benefit from less confected rage on the touchlines, fewer players feigning injury in the hope that the VAR crew gets busy, and a game that is not continuously interrupted by reviews that, frankly, could go either way.

World Cup VAR errors: Graham Scott’s top 10

1. Red card to Themba Zwane (for South Africa, vs Mexico)

Zwane was being blocked illegally by opponent Roberto Alvarado and used his arm to get past him. There was contact across the Mexican’s face, but nowhere near enough to justify a red card for violent conduct. The referee’s initial decision to play on should have stood.

2. Penalty not awarded to Prince Adu (for Ghana, vs England)

An illegal challenge by Ezri Konsa went undetected on-field, which was forgivable, and then unpunished by VAR, which wasn’t. It was as clear and obvious a foul as you will see, and the lack of an intervention is inexplicable.

3. Goal scored by Vinicius Junior is disallowed (for Brazil, vs Scotland)

The referee had a good view of this incident, in which Scott McKenna was caught in possession by Vinicius Jr, who went on to score. Nobody expected an intervention, but the VAR’s forensic check spotted minor contact by the Brazilian and he sent the ref to the screen.

4. Goal allowed to stand despite foul by Aleksandar Pavlovic (for Germany, vs Ecuador)

Pavlovic raised his boot so high in playing the ball that, in his follow-through, he caught Pedro Vite on the side of his head. Contrast that with the decision to disallow a DR Congo goal against Uzbekistan two days later (below).

(Patrick Smith – FIFA/FIFA via Getty Images)

5. Goal scored by Nathanael Mbuku is disallowed (for DR Congo, vs Uzbekistan)

Around 70 yards from goal, Mbuku was being pursued by Sherzod Nasrullaev and reached back with an arm to protect his space, which he was entitled to do. He made light contact with Nasrullaev around his neck and the side of his face, but enough for VAR to disallow the ensuing goal? Surely not. The threshold in such circumstances should be much higher, so the VAR only intervenes if the challenge merits a yellow or red card.

6. Penalty not awarded to Richie Laryea (for Canada, vs South Africa)

Defender Khuliso Mudau challenged for the ball, which was in Laryea’s possession, but only succeeded in bringing the Canadian forward down. Presumably, the officials at the match in Los Angeles and the team back in Dallas decided between them that Laryea initiated the contact, or it was a natural coming-together, but it should have been a penalty.

7. Goal scored by Jonathan Tah is disallowed (for Germany, vs Paraguay)

The world appears united in wanting to see less holding, grappling and wrestling at set plays, but some level of contact should still be allowed. The VAR intervention here was an example of the pendulum swinging back too far, as Paraguay goalkeeper Orlando Gill fell to the ground after a minor bump with Waldemar Anton.

8. Penalty awarded to Youri Tielemans (for Belgium, vs Senegal)

Late in extra time, Tielemans and opponent Lamine Camara converged on the ball. Neither played the ball, but neither committed an offence either: it was a natural coming-together that the referee read correctly in real time. Only when viewed in slow motion, with the context stripped away, would anyone consider it a foul. An eight-minute delay later, Tielemans scored from the penalty spot to send Belgium through and Senegal home.

9. Goal scored by Mostafa Ziko is disallowed (for Egypt, vs Argentina)

I cannot see a foul at the change of possession here, but accept I could be in the minority. Football needs to decide whether it is an offence to stand accidentally on an opponent’s foot when two players are competing for space — see Spain’s disallowed goal in the final as another example — but I think this was normal contact. Nonetheless, the incident is 100 yards from goal and Argentina had 10 players behind the ball.

10. Penalty not awarded to Kylian Mbappe (for France, vs Senegal)

This was an outlier, as the VAR did all he could to persuade the referee he had dropped a clanger by failing to spot a clear foul by Sadio Mane. Even after watching replays, the ref stuck with his original call that Mbappe had initiated the contact, which was palpable nonsense.