VAR consistency questioned at Women's World Cup after controversial

The use of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system at the Women's World Cup has come under scrutiny following a week of controversial decisions that have left fans and players questioning its consistency. Just days after questions arose about whether VAR was being applied differently at the tournament, a series of puzzling interventions—or lack thereof—have sparked debate.

VAR statistics: World Cup vs. Premier League

So far, VAR intervention rates at the Women's World Cup are comparable to those in the English Premier League. In the Premier League last season, there were 0.29 interventions per game; at the World Cup, the figure stands at 0.28. For subjective interventions requiring the referee to visit the monitor, the Premier League had 0.15 per match, while the World Cup has 0.17. These numbers suggest a similar approach, but the outcomes have been inconsistent.

Pierluigi Collina, FIFA's head of referees, has emphasized that football is a contact sport and not all contact constitutes a foul. He advocates for free-flowing, high-tempo games, which means allowing more robust challenges. This philosophy, however, forces VAR to adjust its threshold for what constitutes a "clear and obvious error," a challenge the Premier League has also struggled to address.

Contrast with other competitions

Other competitions, such as the UEFA Champions League, apply a lower bar for VAR involvement, resulting in more frequent interventions. In the Champions League, there are 0.47 interventions per game and 0.36 monitor visits per match. This creates a perception of consistency because interventions are expected, but it may not align with VAR's original purpose of correcting only clear howlers. Handball decisions, for example, are treated strictly by UEFA, leaving little room for subjectivity.

Key controversial incidents

Ghana vs. England: Penalty claim ignored

On Tuesday, Ghana coach Carlos Queiroz remarked that "VAR went for a coffee" after his side was denied a penalty against England. Ezri Konsa's clumsy tackle on Prince Kwabena Adu went unpunished in a match that ended 0-0, surprising many observers.

Brazil vs. Scotland: Disallowed goal

On Wednesday, Brazil had a goal ruled out in their 3-0 win against Scotland for a foul by Vinicius Jr on Jack Hendry. Replays suggested Hendry had kicked the Real Madrid forward, rather than a clear foul occurring. Former World Cup assistant referee Darren Cann commented on BBC's Match of the Day: "I think Scotland are a little fortunate to be honest. There is a little contact before the ball is played but I don't really feel that it's a foul."

Germany vs. Ecuador: High boot allowed, penalty overturned

On Thursday, Germany's 2-1 loss to Ecuador featured two contentious VAR moments. First, Leroy Sane's early goal was allowed to stand despite Alexandar Pavlovic's high boot clearly catching the head of Pedro Vite. Former England goalkeeper Joe Hart said: "Every single player watching this World Cup right now would have seen this incident and said immediately, that's endangering an opponent, that's a high boot, that's a foul. I think it's the wrong decision." Former England striker Ellen White added: "I'm shocked that it wasn't reviewed and it wasn't disallowed."

Later, referee Tori Penso awarded a penalty to Germany after Kai Havertz went down under a challenge from Joel Ordonez. However, VAR Joe Dickerson intervened, instructing Penso to cancel the penalty due to a foul by Leroy Sane on Vite in the buildup. While the intervention was technically correct, it appeared inconsistent with the earlier decision not to penalize Pavlovic's high boot. Some observers suggested VAR may have been compensating for the earlier oversight.

Conclusion

The Women's World Cup has highlighted the difficulty of maintaining a consistently high bar for VAR interventions. As the tournament progresses, the debate over how VAR should be applied—and whether it is being used as intended—is likely to continue.