After each game, we take a look at key incidents to examine and explain the process in terms of both VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.
– Full review of World Cup VAR: analyzed every decision
Potential foul: on Saka in the buildup to the Choumeny goal
What happened: Dayot Upmekano won the ball Bukayo Saka just outside his own territory, and set up a break which resulted in aurelian tchoumeni giving France The lead in the 17th minute, but there was a VAR check for a tackle.
VAR Decision: The target is standing.
VAR Review: The VAR, Nicolás Gallo of Colombia, has two things to consider: whether the challenge was within the attacking phase, and whether it was a clear and obvious error by the referee, Brazil’s Wilton Sampaio, in not awarding the free kick.
The challenge came 27 seconds before Choumeni’s shot was to hit the back of the net, and while timing is not the final factor in determining the start of an attacking phase, it may have influenced the decision. It is more about the team that has lost possession winning the ball back, and if the attacking team has stopped their forward momentum. It’s arguable that none of these were present, but to go so far back in a game as to deny a goal would be something we haven’t seen in this World Cup.
The second question is on the challenge itself. We can see from the replays that Upamecano grabbed Saka’s left leg, causing him to fall and lose possession. But was it a clear and obvious error for the referee not to see it? This is a tough call to make, and while it should be a free kick, it probably isn’t high enough to cross the threshold for VAR intervention.
Possible penalty: Foul by Upamecano on Kane
What happened: in the 25th minute, harry kane After being robbed of the ball Upamecano fell on the edge of the area. Referee Sampaio let play continue, but there was a lengthy VAR review for the penalty.
VAR Decision: No penalty.
VAR Review: It was definitely a foul by Upamecano, who caught Kane behind his calf just as he was entering the area. But VAR can only rule on penalties and not missed free kicks. Therefore, if the foul occurs on the line or in the area it is a penalty; If the foul occurs outside the field, play continues from where it stopped.
It all comes down to VAR, requiring loads of evidence to prove where foul contact occurred – just like the ball plays on Japan’s winning goal against Spain. VAR will take the moment of contact that causes the foul: where is that part of Kane’s foot in relation to the line (the line is related to the box, so it is a penalty on it.) He falls into the Kane area, or its Having one foot inside when the contact is made is not relevant.
The VAR will check every available angle (much more than what is shown on television) to try to work out where the contact was, using multiple syncopated cameras in a single frame. The angles shown on TV weren’t really conclusive, and only cameras square to the penalty area line could really give VAR the best evidence. In this case, it was decided that the contact was just outside the field, or at least there was no evidence that it was on the line.
But it again highlights an unacceptable level of information on VAR decisions from FIFA within the game. It only shows the fans what VAR is seeing if the referee is on the monitor. Otherwise, it all goes on in the background and everyone is left guessing about the process. We all want to hear the audio from the VAR room, but at the moment FIFA (and UEFA for that matter) and even the supporters are reluctant to show what the teams are seeing.
VAR overturn: penalty by Hernandez for a foul on Mt.
What happened: in the 80th minute, Jude Bellingham attempted a long ball on the up mason mountthrown to the ground theo hernandez, Referee Sampaio waved play again after the ball went past the goalkeeper. hugo lorisBut VAR advised that there should be a penalty.
VAR Decision: Penalty, with Kane shooting over the bar.
VAR Review: It was undoubtedly the right decision, given the referee’s view of the blocking incident by the France defender rafael verne, Hernandez had no intention of playing the ball and clearly used his upper body to knock the mount down with force, rather than shouldering it.
Hernandez was booked, and several England The players were shocked that he was not shown a red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Mount was not in control of the ball, and there is certainly enough doubt that he would get on the end of it and have a strong chance to score, so for that reason a yellow was a reasonable result.