Following England’s recent victory over Mexico, Thomas Tuchel expressed his dissatisfaction with the officiating during the World Cup, labeling it as inconsistent and subpar. However, it seems his remarks might serve as a form of reverse psychology. Overall, refereeing has not been as problematic as he suggests, although there have been moments of error, reminding us that perfection is unattainable in any profession.
Egypt voiced their concerns about unfair treatment in their match against Argentina, yet the calls to disallow an Egypt goal and validate Argentina’s winning strike were justified. The first incident involved Marwan Attia committing a foul on Lisandro Martínez during an attacking phase, marked by a shirt pull and a stomp on Martínez’s foot. Importantly, the play was continuous, moving forward without any backward or lateral passes until the ball found the net.
This disallowed goal had the potential to be a highlight of the tournament, but the referee’s decision was ultimately correct. In the case of Argentina’s third goal, Egypt argued that a foul was committed by Julián Alvarez on Mohamed Salah. While some may see similarities with the earlier incident due to boot-on-boot contact, the circumstances differ significantly. Alvarez played the ball first, and the subsequent contact did not fulfill the criteria for a foul or warrant intervention from the video assistant referee (VAR).
In the match between Mexico and England, VAR played a crucial role, particularly concerning Jarell Quansah’s tackle on Jesús Gallardo, which was a clear red-card offense. I was surprised that referee Alireza Faghani did not initially recognize the severity of the challenge, but after VAR recommended a review, a correct decision was ultimately reached.
Tuchel’s frustration stemmed from several controversial calls that night. The referee faced considerable challenges due to the atmosphere, adverse weather conditions, and the match’s location at the Azteca Stadium. Moreover, player behavior complicated matters, as they often feigned injuries, expressed dissent, and contested nearly every call. When Quansah’s challenge occurred, it escalated tensions, prompting an angry reaction from the entire Mexico bench, which led to further chaos.
England’s consideration of an appeal against Quansah’s red card is unexpected, particularly in light of the Folarin Balogun incident, which has shifted the context. Traditionally, tournament regulations have not allowed appeals against red cards, with automatic one-match bans enforced. I was unfamiliar with Article 27 of FIFA’s disciplinary code, which FIFA cited to lift the suspension of the USA striker.
Balogun’s expulsion was justifiable based on VAR’s assistance. Initially, I had doubts about whether his challenge on Tarik Muharemovic from Bosnia and Herzegovina warranted a red card, but upon reviewing the footage, I concluded it did, despite the absence of malice. The key indicator was the position of the ball, which was not within a playable range.
When assessing potential red-card offenses, two critical factors must be considered: the use of excessive force and the risk posed to an opponent’s safety. In Balogun’s case, the contact occurred on the calf, proceeding down to the Achilles, resulting in an ankle roll that could have led to severe injury.
The involvement of Donald Trump and Tuchel’s remarks has amplified the scrutiny surrounding officiating. Referees must learn to tune out such distractions, and in elite officiating, sports psychologists are available to assist. Personally, I struggled to shake off a poor decision; it could linger in my mind for days. However, that is distinct from allowing it to influence performance. A referee must remain focused on the present.
A total of 13 red cards have been issued during this World Cup, surpassing the four shown in each of the previous tournaments, yet I believe complaints are minimal. Player safety remains paramount, and cases like Quansah and Balogun illustrate the standards we must uphold. VAR has been effectively employed to correct on-field decisions regarding red cards.
That said, VAR interventions have not been flawless. For instance, Vinícius Júnior’s goal for Brazil against Scotland was ruled out, but I felt the original on-field decision was correct. The contact was minimal, and not all contact constitutes a foul, as it is inherent in football. Therefore, this was not a clear and obvious error on the referee’s part.
In such situations, a “check complete” should suffice, negating the 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. However, since it did not constitute a clear and obvious mistake, I agreed with the video assistant’s choice to uphold the referee’s ruling.
In another instance, VAR correctly intervened to award France a penalty after Désiré Doué was fouled by Paraguay’s Diego Gómez, a call I found surprising that the referee, Ilgiz Tantashev, did not make initially.
This particular match posed its own difficulties, yet the referee needed to exert more authority. I was taken aback that no players from Paraguay received cautions. Referees aim to manage the game, but there are moments when issuing cards is essential. Tantashev missed several opportunities to show yellow cards, which allowed Paraguay to grow more confident, ultimately jeopardizing his control over the match.
FIFA has evidently adjusted its approach to VAR, establishing a high threshold for intervention similar to that observed in the Premier League. Observing diverse refereeing styles from different nations and confederations has been intriguing. Nonetheless, certain fouls are universally recognized, and I was amazed when Leroy Sané’s goal for Germany against Ecuador was allowed despite his teammate Aleksandar Pavlovic having kicked Pedro Vite in the head. Each goal scored is automatically reviewed by VAR during the attacking possession phase, and I believe that should have been flagged as a foul.
Pavlovic’s foot was positioned higher than Declan Rice’s when the England midfielder received a booking early in the Mexico match. I suspect that both the video assistant and the referee concluded it was a matter of equivalency; that Vite had lowered his head while Pavlovic had lifted his foot, thus not meeting the threshold for foul play.
Chris Foy is a former Premier League referee.
- World Cup 2026
- Referees
- Laws of football
- World Cup
- analysis
