Two contested decisions at the 2026 World Cup have reignited debate over how video assistant referee (VAR) reviews should work, and how far back a referee should look when deciding what counts as part of the same passage of play.

VAR allows referees to review contentious incidents using replay footage, with the human referee making the final decision. It’s meant to catch “clear and obvious errors” or incidents that the on-field officials missed. A referee reviewing an incident must decide how far back in time the reviewable passage of play extends.

A 2021 study of 2,195 competitive football matches across 13 countries found referees got calls right 92.1 per cent of the time, rising to 98.3 per cent after a VAR intervention.

But replay only supplies the evidence. It doesn’t supply interpretation, responsibility or a decision about how much of the play needs to be examined to establish appropriate context. That judgment falls to the referee. VAR’s effectiveness depends on referees interpreting the evidence within the incident’s interactions and its relevant context.

As researchers who study the ethical implications of AI use in soccer, we’ve found that two decisions from the 2026 tournament illustrate how difficult these boundary calls can be in practice.

Argentina’s overturned goal

In the round of 16 match between Argentina and Egypt, VAR overturned an Egyptian goal after reviewing an incident that occurred nearly a minute earlier.

Egypt was leading 1-0 when Mostafa Ziko scored in the 58th minute to make it 2-0. VAR recommended an on-field review of Egypt’s Marwan Attia stepping on Argentina’s Lisandro Martínez’s foot 17 seconds before the goal and more than 80 metres from where it was scored.

The referee reviewed the incident and cancelled the goal. Argentina came back to win the........

© The Conversation