2022 World Cup VAR review: Every decision in Qatar analysed

We're analysing every VAR decision made throughout all 64 games at the 2022 World Cup.

After each game, we take a look at the major incidents to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

Fixtures, result & bracket: Daily World Cup schedule

Total overturns: 25
Rejected overturns: 2

Leading to goals: 6
Leading to disallowed goals: 10
Penalties awarded: 10 (6 missed)
~ for holding: 2
~ for handball: 2
Penalties cancelled: 1 (offside)
Penalty retakes: 1 (GK encroaching)
Rejected penalties: 2
Goals ruled out for offside: 8
Goals after incorrect offside: 2
Red cards: 1

Argentina 3-3 France

Possible VAR overturn: Penalty for foul by Dembele on Di Maria

What happened: Argentina were awarded a penalty in the 21st minute. Angel Di Maria had skipped past Ousmane Dembele into the box and went to ground under an apparent trip. Polish referee Szymon Marciniak pointed to the penalty spot.

VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Lionel Messi.

VAR review: This was certainly a soft penalty, but it's not one the VAR, Tomasz Kwiatkowski, would ever look to overturn. The decision of the referee carries most weight, and as soon as the VAR could identify contact leading to the trip, it wouldn't be overturned. It may well not have been a penalty through VAR had Marciniak not awarded it himself.

Arguably Dembele doesn't really even make a challenge for the ball, but intent isn't relevant when judging penalty situations. He is deemed responsible for the space he holds.

In chasing Di Maria and getting so close to his opponent, it effectively resulted in Dembele running into Di Maria's leg and causing the Argentina forward to clip his own feet together, causing him to go to ground.

Possible penalty: Foul by Upamecano on Mac Allister

What happened: In the 62nd minute, Alexis Mac Allister appealed for a penalty after being pushed off the ball by Dayot Upamecano. The referee waved play on.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: Is a shoulder charge allowed in football? It is, but it comes down to what is considered to be a "fair charge."

It must be shoulder to shoulder (or side on side; contact doesn't have to be directly shoulder upon shoulder), without the use of arms or elbows. It cannot be in the back, which was the case with the VAR penalty awarded to England against France in the quarterfinals when Theo Hernandez knocked Mason Mount to the ground.

Upamecano's challenge was just the right side of the law for what would be considered a legal charge.

Possible red card: Penalty conceded by Otamendi

What happened: France got back into the game in the 79th minute when Randal Kolo Muani was bundled to the ground by Nicolas Otamendi. There was no question about the decision to award the penalty, but should it have been a red card?

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR review: Remarkably, Otamendi didn't even receive a yellow card, and there are many arguments for it being a red.

The law covering double jeopardy, which prevents a red card for denying a goal-scoring opportunity when a penalty has been conceded, only applies to genuine attempts to win the ball. Pulling back an opponent, or an unintentional trip, would still result in a player being sent off.

Kolo Muani had beaten Otamendi and was then both pulled back and tripped. Was the Argentina defender ever making a genuine attempt to play the ball?

You could formulate some kind of argument for this not to be a red card -- such as Kolo Muani being wide in the area and not fully in control of the ball, which is probably why the VAR didn't intervene -- but Marciniak clearly wasn't even considering the DOGSO aspect as there was no caution.

Probably the only misstep by the referee in this game, with the VAR unable to advise a missed yellow card, only a red.

Possible penalty: Foul by Fernandez on Thuram

What happened: Marcus Thuram wanted a penalty in the 87th minute when he claimed he had been tripped by Enzo Fernandez. Referee Marciniak was having none of it, and immediately booked Thuram for simulation.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: A classic case of an attacker trying to win a penalty by initiating contact, and a brilliant spot by Marciniak.

Thuram looks to go past Fernandez but then places his right foot into the Argentina player after he had withdrawn from the challenge.

Possible offside: Martinez on Messi goal

What happened: Argentina went 3-2 up in the 108th minute, but there was a question of offside in the buildup against Lautaro Martinez, who had the first shot before Messi scored.

VAR decision: Goal stands.

VAR review: Something of a confusing situation, because after the referee signalled the ball had crossed the line for Messi's goal, the assistant appeared to raise his flag for offside against Martinez. However, Marciniak continued to point back to the centre circle for the goal.

There's no evidence the goal was actually disallowed and then awarded after a VAR intervention. FIFA showed the 3D animation a few minutes later to prove Martinez was indeed clearly onside, thanks to the defender's backside.

Penalty: Handball by Montiel

What happened: Gonzalo Montiel had only been on the pitch for 12 minutes when he conceded the 114th-minute penalty which sent the World Cup final to a shootout.

VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Kylian Mbappe.

VAR review: A textbook example of a modern handball penalty.

Montiel turns and makes his body bigger with his arm away from his body, creating an obvious barrier to goal for a shot by Mbappe.

Another excellent spot by referee Marciniak, this time coming with the requisite yellow card.

Croatia 2-1 Morocco

Possible penalty: Amrabat challenge on Gvardiol

What happened: In the 75th minute, Gvardiol got in front of Amrabat inside the area and appeared to be clipped. Qatari referee Abdulrahman Al-Jassim waved away the appeals and play continued for over a minute while a VAR review took place in the background.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: This all comes down to the motives of the attacker being very important in any VAR review for a penalty.

The VAR, Julio Bascunan of Chile, should look for contact, ask if that contact has a consequence, and consider if the attacking player used that contact to try to win a penalty. Contact alone is not sufficient.

Was Gvardiol caught by Amrabat? Absolutely.

Did this contact cause Gvardiol to go to ground in the way he did? Probably not.

After the contact on his left foot, Gvardiol takes a step to control the ball with his left foot and then drags his right foot along the turf -- the VAR will specifically look for this -- and theatrically goes to ground. This is a textbook example of a player trying to give the impression of a level of contact and effectively simulate the fall.

If the referee had given the spot kick it probably would have stood, because the decision on the pitch carries most weight, but it's unlikely to be given through VAR.

There was such a soft decision in this World Cup given to Saudi Arabia against Poland, for Krystian Bielik's challenge on Saleh Al-Shehri, though that is an outlier in this tournament.

France 2-0 Morocco

Possible penalty: Foul by Hernandez on Boufal

What happened: In the 27th minute, Theo Hernandez had a heavy touch on the ball just inside the area. Sofiane Boufal came in to challenge the France defender but Hernandez got a touch on the ball first. Referee Cesar Ramos of Mexico gave the free kick against Boufal and booked the Morocco player for the challenge.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: A controversial outcome, because what is certain is that Boufal shouldn't have been booked. The Morocco player made no challenge and was in fact kicked by Hernandez. So how does the game still continue with a free kick to France and a caution for Boufal?

This comes down to whether you think the touch on the ball by Hernandez cancels out the possibility of the penalty. It can, but a touch on the ball doesn't allow the defender to challenge an opponent in any manner.

The touch on the ball will be the justification for the VAR, but if the defender's challenge is deemed to be reckless or out of control, the VAR should still be looking to advise an overturn for a penalty kick. Hernandez plays the ball with his left foot, but then makes contact with Boufal with his right leg; the follow-through was not justifiable by the touch on the ball and the challenge that came after.

The VAR, Drew Fischer of Canada, has been one of the most active of the tournament, with this being his eighth appointment as lead video assistant. He was the VAR who advised Saudi Arabia should be awarded a very soft penalty against Poland, with Salem Al-Dawsari's effort saved by Wojciech Szczesny. This feels more of a penalty than that incident.

The only way Boufal's yellow card could be rescinded would be if there was a VAR overturn to award a penalty.

England 1-2 France

Possible foul: on Saka in the buildup to Tchouameni goal

What happened: Dayot Upamecano won the ball off Bukayo Saka just outside his own area, and set up a break that resulted in Aurelien Tchouameni giving France a 17th-minute lead, but there was a VAR check for the tackle.

VAR decision: Goal stands.

VAR review: The VAR, Nicolas Gallo of Colombia, has two things to consider: is the challenge within the attacking phase, and was it a clear and obvious error by the referee, Wilton Sampaio of Brazil, not to award a free kick.

The challenge came 27 seconds before Tchouameni's shot hit the back of the net, and while time is not the ultimate factor in determining the start of the attacking phase it can influence the decision. It's more about the team that lost possession being in a position to win the ball back, and also if the attacking team stopped its forward momentum. It's arguable neither of these were present, but to go so far back in a game to disallow a goal would be something we haven't see at this World Cup.

The second question is over the challenge itself. We can see from the replays that Upamecano caught Saka's left foot, causing him to fall over and lose possession. But was it a clear and obvious error for the referee not to see that? It's a tough one to call, and while it should be a free kick there probably isn't enough to cross the threshold for a VAR intervention.

Possible penalty: Foul by Upamecano on Kane

What happened: In the 25th minute, Harry Kane went down on the edge of the area after robbing Upamecano of the ball. Referee Sampaio waved play on, but there was a lengthy VAR review for a penalty.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: This was a definite foul by Upamecano, who caught Kane on the back of his calf just has he was entering the area. But the VAR can only rule on the penalty and not a missed free kick. So, if the foul takes place on the line or in the area it's a penalty; if the foul takes place outside the area play continues from the point it was stopped.

This all comes down the VAR needing the weight of evidence to prove where the foul contact took place -- just like with the ball in play on Japan's winning goal against Spain. The VAR will take the moment of contact which causes the foul: where is that part of Kane's leg in relation to the line (the line belongs to the box, so it's a penalty if on it.) That Kane falls into the area, or has a foot inside it when contact is made isn't relevant.

The VAR will check every available angle (there are far more than we are shown on the television) to try to work out where this contact was, using multiple synced cameras to the same frame. The angles shown on TV really weren't conclusive, and only the camera square to the penalty area line can really give the VAR the best evidence. In this case, it was decided that contact was just outside the area, or at least there wasn't the evidence it was on the line.

But this again highlights the unacceptable level of information on VAR decisions from FIFA within games. It only shows fans what the VAR is viewing if the referee is at the monitor. Otherwise, it all goes on in the background and everyone is left to guess 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 reluctant to even show supporters what the team is looking at.

VAR overturn: Penalty for foul by Hernandez on Mount

What happened: In the 80th minute, Jude Bellingham attempted a long ball over the top to Mason Mount, who was knocked to the ground by Theo Hernandez. Referee Sampaio again waved play on as the ball ran through to goalkeeper Hugo Lloris, but the VAR advised there should be a penalty.

VAR decision: Penalty, with Kane shooting over the bar.

VAR review: This was undoubtedly the correct decision, with the referee appearing to have his view of the incident blocked by France defender Raphael Varane. Hernandez had no intention of playing the ball and clearly used his upper body with force to knock Mount over, rather than it being shoulder to shoulder.

Hernandez was booked, and several England players were shocked he was not shown a red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. Mount wasn't in control of the ball, and there is certainly enough doubt he would have got on the end of it and had a strong chance to score, so for that reason a yellow was a fair outcome.

Morocco 1-0 Portugal

Possible penalty: Foul on Fernandes by Hakimi

What happened: In first half stoppage time, Bruno Fernandes went to ground inside the area as Morocco defender Achraf Hakimi looked to avoid making contact. Referee Facundo Tello of Argentina waved away claims for a penalty, but the VAR, fellow Argentine Mauro Vigliano, began a review.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: From the replays it's very difficult to see if there was any contact by Hakimi on Fernandes, and even if there was the Portugal midfielder without doubt exaggerated the fall. Referees and VARs are very much looking for situations where an attacker may embellish the way they go to ground in an attempt to win a penalty for minor contact, so a spot kick was never a likely outcome in this case.

Possible penalty: Handball by El Yamiq

What happened: In the 86th minute, Fernandes swung a cross in from the right wing and after Jawad El Yamiq dived low to attempt to head the ball away, it struck his arm. The referee wasn't interested in Portugal's claims for a penalty kick.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: A simple and quick review. If a defender plays the ball onto their own arm in a deliberate play of the ball, it cannot be a handball offence even if the arm is away from the body. The logic behind it is that if a player is making a defensive clearance, there can be no intent to handball by having the arm away from the body.

It is possible for a penalty to be awarded if the ball comes off a defender and onto their arm, but only via a deflection and not a play of the ball.

France 3-1 Poland

VAR overturn: Penalty for handball by Upamecano

What happened: Deep into added time, Kamil Grosicki attempted to cross the ball into the area, and it hit France defender Dayot Upamecano as he turned away. The referee, Jesus Valenzuela of Venezuela, awarded the corner despite the Poland winger's claims for handball.

VAR decision: Penalty, Robert Lewandowski's effort saved by Hugo Lloris. However, the goalkeeper was off his line when the penalty was kicked, so the VAR ordered a retake and the striker converted at the second attempt.

VAR review: If the ball had hit Upamecano on his left arm, which was tucked into his body, then the VAR, fellow Venezuelan Juan Soto, wouldn't have advised a penalty.

However, Upamecano's arm was out and created a barrier for the cross into the area. It may seem like a harsh decision, especially with the proximity of the defender to the cross when it was played, but it's correct in law.

Also, a goalkeeper must have at least one foot on or above the line when a penalty is struck, and Lewandowski's feint meant Lloris was already well off his line at the point of the shot; a simple VAR decision to order the retake.

Ghana 0-2 Uruguay

VAR overturn rejected: Penalty for foul by Amartey on Nunez

What happened: In the 58th minute, Darwin Nunez broke into the box and was challenged by Ghana defender Daniel Amartey. Referee Siebert waved away claims for a penalty, but the VAR advised he should go to the monitor to review the incident.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: For only the second time in the tournament, a referee stuck by his originally decision after being sent to the pitchside monitor -- but it's the first time the specific reason for the review has been rejected. In Denmark vs. Tunisia, the referee spotted a foul in the buildup when reviewing a possible handball penalty.

Referee Daniel Siebert took a long look at the incident from several angles, and ultimately concluded he hadn't made a clear and obvious error to allow play to continue.

There is no doubt Amartey gets a toe to the ball, the question is whether he fouled Nunez in the process of reaching for it. Some angles suggested he got the Uruguay striker first and then the ball, others were less conclusive.

Some will argue this should have been a spot kick, but it is a borderline decision and you can't argue with the referee standing by his judgement after he's been shown all the angles. There's nothing wrong with the VAR, fellow German Bastian Dankert, advising the review and it being rejected. If reviews were never turned down by the referee, it would suggest that VARs are infallible -- which clearly can't be the case because these are subjective, human decisions and not binary.

The ball had hit Nunez's arm before he was brought down, but this was not assessed. Play restarted with a dropped ball (it wasn't out of play when the referee spotted the game for the review), rather than a free kick to Ghana in their own penalty area for the handball.

Uruguay had another claim for a penalty in injury time when Edinson Cavani tangled legs with Alidu Seidu. This is similar to Canada's penalty claim vs. Belgium, when Richie Laryea tangled with Axel Witsel. They are the kind of challenges which are usually left to the on-field decision -- whether the referee has given the penalty or not.

VAR overturn: Penalty for foul by Rochet on Kudus

What happened: In the 15th minute, Jordan Ayew had a shot on goal, which Andre Ayew moved out of the way of. It was palmed out by goalkeeper Sergio Rochet, but only as far as Mohammed Kudus. When the Ghana striker got to the ball, Rochet came rushing out and collided with him. But any claims for a penalty were silenced when the offside flag went up against Andre Ayew, before the decision was reviewed.

VAR decision: Penalty, Andre Ayew's effort saved by Rochet.

VAR review: A simple decision, even if it comes in two parts. The first question is offside against Andre Ayew. Even though he didn't touch the ball, his movement to allow the shot to pass through to goal would have been an offence. However, FIFA's offside tech showed that he was being played onside by the trailing boot of defender Mathias Olivera, so the assistant's flag was incorrect.

With the offside invalidated, it opens up the review for a possible penalty for Rochet's challenge on Kudus. The striker definitely gets to the ball first before the goalkeeper collides with him, so it came as no surprise that the VAR advised Siebert to review the challenge at the monitor.

The reverse angle gave Siebert the evidence he needed to award the penalty, which was undoubtedly the correct decision. That the ball could have been going out of play doesn't hold any relevance for the penalty decision.

Japan 2-1 Spain

VAR overturn: Ball in play for Tanaka goal

What happened: Japan thought they had scored a second goal in the 51st minute when Ao Tanaka scored as Kaoru Mitoma cut the ball back from the goal-line, but the referee disallowed the goal for the ball being out of play.

VAR decision: Goal, ball in play.