World Cup VAR review: Should Messi have been sent off vs. Algeria?

The video assistant referee causes controversy every week, whether it be the Premier League, Champions League or FA Cup, but now we have a 104-game FIFA men’s World Cup to cover, so how are the decisions made this summer and are they correct?

For the tournament, we are taking a look at the major incidents to examine and explain the process in terms of both VAR protocol and the laws of the game.

Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, with over 12 seasons on the elite list, working across the Premier League and Championship. With extensive experience at the elite level, he has operated within the VAR space in the Premier League and offers a unique insight into the processes, rationale and protocols that are delivered on a World Cup matchday.

Referee: Szymon Marciniak
VAR: Tomasz Kwiatkowski
Time: 30th minute
Incident: Possible red card for tackle by Lionel Messi.

What happened: Lionel Messi tackled Algeria captain Aïssa Mandi in the first half, but seemed to rake his studs along his opponent’s right calf and ankle. But though Marciniak blew for a foul, no card was shown.

VAR review: The challenge was checked and cleared by VAR Kwiatkowski as he did not feel that the on-field referee had made a clear error.

Verdict: Messi’s challenge was unnecessary and he was fortunate that the outcome was not a red card.

When challenging from behind with studs-on-calf contact and a level of force, the outcome should be a red card.

Whether Messi had no intent to foul in this manner is irrelevant; intent is not a consideration in law, and the facts of any contact should be the defining factor.

Messi was lucky as, in my opinion, this was a red card offense. It happened with the score at 1-0 and could have had a big impact on the game. It would have also impacted Messi’s ability to play the rest of the World Cup group games, as a one-match ban could have occurred.

Referee: Alireza Faghani
VAR: Abdullah Atif Abdulrahman Alshehri
Time: 62nd minute
Incident: Possible penalty to France.

What happened: As Kylian Mbappé flew into the Senegal penalty area at speed, Sadio Mané lunged into a late challenge, appearing to catch Mbappé, who went to ground. The referee waved away the appeals and awarded a goal kick. VAR recommended an on-field review for a possible penalty kick.

VAR review: When at the screen, referee Alireza Faghani stuck to his on-field decision of no penalty kick, citing that “the attacker initiated the contact” and therefore no foul challenge had occurred.

Verdict: I am amazed at the referee’s decision to stick with his on-field judgment of no penalty kick. Mané’s challenge was a late lunge, making no contact with the ball, and clearly clipping the left leg of Mbappé, who was moving at speed.

VAR took his time reviewing the replays; however, he was correct in recommending an OFR (On-Field Review). The explanation the referee gave for not awarding the penalty, citing that Mbappé initiated the contact was a poor one, and that may cost this referee any further appointments in the tournament.

---

Referee: Yael Falcón Pérez
VAR: Juan Lara
Time: 84th minute
Incident: VAR Overturn. Goal awarded to Sweden via a VAR review and use of ‘Connected Ball Tracking technology, with the original on-field decision of offside and no goal overturned.

What happened: Sweden’s Mattias Svanberg scored the fourth goal of the game with his first touch, just 12 seconds after coming off the bench — the fastest goal ever at a World Cup by a substitute — but it was ruled offside.

However, VAR overturned the decision after ruling there was a slight flick on the ball by his teammate Alexander Isak which played Svanberg onside. A decision they reached by using Adidas’ Connected Ball Technology (which is similar to the “snickometer” device used in cricket to tell if a player has hit the ball with their bat.)

(Credit: SVT)

VAR review: The key focus on this review was centered around a potential touch by Isak before the ball reached Svanberg, as this would reset the play and determine if the goal was allowed.

To the naked eye, this was impossible to judge, and the on-field decision of offside looked a credible and correct one. However, VAR are able to use Adidas’ ball tracking technology and the system identified the slightest of touches by Isak, which reset the phase, meaning the goal should stand. Read more

---

Referee: Said Martínez
VAR: Guillermo Pacheco
Time: 14th minute
Incident: Check for offside on Switzerland’s Remo Freuler before he was brought down by Qatar goalkeeper Mahmoud Abunada for a penalty, which was scored by Breel Embolo.

What happened: FIFA’s new semi-automated offside system did not work in a key moment during Switzerland vs. Qatar.

Freuler looked offside before he was fouled for the penalty that was awarded to put Switzerland 1-0 up, but the VAR had to draw the offside lines to the players and on the pitch themselves.

Around 4½ hours after the incident happened, FIFA released the images, while it also said in a statement: “A brief technical outage prevented the onside animation graphic from being generated ahead of the penalty in the 14th minute.

“The issue was quickly resolved. The workflow of the VAR was not affected by this issue and followed the normal procedure in checking the onfield decision [of onside].

“The lines used by the VAR to check the position of the relevant players did not show the attacking player to be in an offside position in either of the two situations immediately before the penalty decision.”

(Credit: FIFA)

VAR review: There were two checks: The first on Embolo in the buildup, then on Freuler before he was brought down by Qatar goalkeeper Abunada. Neither was deemed offside.

Verdict: Embarrassing for FIFA, and its new technology. We’ll never know what the decision would have been if the semi-automated offside tech had been working. We have to trust the technology was working and applied as FIFA says, but it has once again created huge doubt in the minds of fans.

---

Referee: Danny Makkelie
VAR: Carlos Del Cerro Grande
Time: 53rd minute
Incident: After originally giving USMNT defender Tim Ream a yellow card, the referee was called to the screen and reissued it to Paraguay’s Miguel Almirón.

After a VAR check for mistaken identity, Miguel Almirón is shown a yellow card 🟨 pic.twitter.com/XeD17F7hnV

— FOX Sports (@FOXSports) June 13, 2026

What happened: Ream, the U.S. team captain, was initially given a yellow card for what appeared to be a careless trip on Paraguay attacker Almirón. However, after the incident was reviewed by VAR and the referee at the screen, it was clear that Ream made no contact with the attacker, and his yellow was rescinded. Almirón received the yellow card for simulation.

VAR review: One of FIFA’s new laws allows VAR to intervene when a player is shown a yellow or red card, but the offense for which the card was shown was committed by another player of either team.

Verdict: When a player clearly deceives the referee, and as a result, an opposing player receives an unfair yellow card, that is a positive addition to the laws. The initial yellow to Ream was an understandable decision in real-time by the referee, but Almirón clearly tries to win a free kick by committing an act of simulation, and his delayed yellow card is justified. This was a good application of the new laws and will hopefully discourage players from diving in these situations.

---

play

Gomez on South Africa’s red cards: ‘I have no idea what got into them’

Referee: Wilton Pereira Sampaio
VAR: Nicolás Gallo Barragán
Time: 49 minutes
Incident: Red card to South Africa‘s Sphephelo Sithole for denial of a goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO).

What happened: South Africa were 1-0 down as the second half kicked off, and they were soon down to 10 players when Sithole was shown a red card for bringing down Mexico midfielder Brian Gutiérrez, who was through on goal. The VAR checked the decision and judged it to be correct.

Verdict: Sithole will go down in history as the first player to be shown a red card at this World Cup, and this was a relatively easy decision.

Mexico’s Gutiérrez cut across the South Africa defender and was tripped in the process, causing him to go down. Gutiérrez had a clear opportunity to score with his next action, so the resulting red card was the correct decision.

South Africa is shown a red card and is down to 10 men! 🟥 pic.twitter.com/HnPqExqTRq

— FOX Sports (@FOXSports) June 11, 2026

Time: 84 minutes
Incident: Red card to South Africa’s Themba Zwane for violent conduct for striking an opponent.

What happened: Zwane attempted to move past Mexico’s Roberto Alvarado, but his hand caught Alvarado’s face in the process. The referee did not initially issue a red card, but did so after a VAR review.

Verdict: I felt this was a harsh decision considering the red card was given for “violent conduct/an act of brutality,” and I do not believe this was either.

When you strike an opponent and there is contact to the face, there is a danger that it could be judged as violent conduct, and you run the risk of receiving a red card. Given the amount of time the referee spent at the screen watching replays, though, I do not believe he was completely convinced this was a violent act.

But once at the screen, it would have been a very brave decision not to take the action he did, given the information fed to him by the VAR.

South Africa is down to 9 players after a second red card 🟥 pic.twitter.com/uS87sjfQlI

— FOX Sports (@FOXSports) June 11, 2026

Time: 90+2 minutes
Incident: Red card for Mexico defender César Montes for denial of a goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO).

What happened: South Africa broke in numbers and had four players on three as Khuliso Mudau raced toward the box. Montes got across and clipped him just outside the box, and the referee was quick to show a red card. The VAR reviewed the decision and judged it to be correct.

Verdict: I was surprised by the on-field decision of a red card as I did not feel this was an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

For this to completely meet the threshold of DOGSO, the referee has be sure that the attacker’s next touch is going to be a shot on goal or his direction of play is directly in on goal. In my opinion, this situation did not completely meet the criteria required for a red card. The attacker’s next action was more likely to be a cross to his teammate as opposed to a shot on goal, making this a possible goal-scoring opportunity and not an obvious one.

But I would not expect the VAR to interfere with this decision as it would not be judged as a “clear and obvious” error given the level of subjectivity around the attacker’s next action, whether it be a shot or cross.

César Montes is sent off 🟥

This is the first time 3 players have been shown a red card in a FIFA World Cup opening match pic.twitter.com/GCC20sv3gz

— FOX Sports (@FOXSports) June 11, 2026