#WorldCup2026 #LetterstothePeachy #SpectacularSportspeople by #MoverandShaker Paul Rejer, FIFA Assistant Referee, Assessor for the PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Limited) WORLD CUP 2026 IN THE USA – EXCLUSIVE INSIGHTS FOR WHOM YOU KNOW #EnglandPeachy
Note from the editor: it is extremely rare for us to publish something written by someone other than Peachy. However, for all of the home games of NYCFC for its inaugural season in 2015, she and Paul were both in the press box watching the games and Paul trains nearly all referees as we see it! No one knows more about soccer rules and has a more pronounced love of the game than Paul Rejer says Peachy. We will humor Paul and allow him to use English, not American, spelling.
Someone should be his agent and get him a commentary job on sports tv!!!!
***
WORLD CUP 2026 IN THE USA – EXCLUSIVE INSIGHTS FOR WHOM YOU KNOW
BY PAUL REJER
Like most sports, football (soccer) has its share of controversial refereeing decisions, and this tournament is no exception. Unsurprisingly, many of the main talking points have centered on the interpretation and use of VAR (Video Assistant Referee). I was part of the 2014 panel that helped introduce VAR in the USA for Major League Soccer, where it appears to have become a valuable support tool for referees in North America.
VAR was introduced partly to reduce controversy, yet in many leagues around the world it has created even more debate—and, at times, greater frustration—than ordinary refereeing decisions. Its purpose is to intervene only in cases of clear and obvious errors. In my view, this is where VAR officials and referees have been inconsistent with IFAB (International Football Association Board) protocol, as shown by several controversial examples below.
Argentina v Egypt – Disallowed Goal
After the match, Egypt coach Hossam Hassan blamed VAR for his team’s elimination, arguing that the officiating was unfair and favoured the reigning world champions, Argentina.
The incident began deep in Egypt’s defensive corner, where Marwan Attia was judged to have fouled Argentina’s Lisandro Martinez. Referee François Letexier, who had a clear view, saw no foul and allowed play to continue. Egypt then moved the ball the length of the pitch before Zico scored an outstanding goal that would have made it 2-0. They later scored again in the 68th minute, which would have made it 3-0. However, VAR recommended an on-field review, and the goal was disallowed. Was this foul truly a clear and obvious error, given that it occurred deep in Egypt’s own half and involved only a slight shirt pull and possible foot contact? The correct procedure may have been followed, but is this level of forensic analysis what football wants when it results in a superb goal being ruled out to the surprise of almost everyone?
Additional examples
Mexico v England – Penalty Awarded to Mexico
Harry Kane and Mexico’s Gimenez both raised a foot while challenging for the ball. Referee Alireza Faghani, who was well positioned, did not award a penalty, but VAR advised him to review the incident on the pitch-side monitor. After the review, he awarded Mexico a penalty.
This decision was:
Completely unexpected.
Highly subjective and, in my view, not a clear and obvious error.
England v Norway – England Penalty Rescinded
England’s Djed Spence burst into the penalty area before Norway’s Oscar Bobb came across him from the side, causing Spence to go down immediately. Referee Clement Turpin, widely regarded as one of the world’s best referees, confidently awarded England a penalty. VAR then advised him to review the incident on the monitor, after which the penalty decision was overturned.
This decision was:
Completely unexpected.
Highly subjective and, in my view, not a clear and obvious error.
Argentina v Switzerland – Breel Embolo Sent Off
Referee João Pinheiro initially showed Argentina’s Leandro Paredes a yellow card for what he considered a reckless challenge on Breel Embolo, who went to ground. VAR intervened, and after reviewing the incident on the monitor, the referee rescinded Paredes’ yellow card and instead cautioned Embolo for simulation. As Embolo had already been booked, this second yellow resulted in his dismissal. At the time, in the 72nd minute, the score was 1-1, with Switzerland gaining momentum after just scoring. Despite being reduced to ten men, they held on until extra time before eventually losing 3-1, a heartbreaking outcome for the Swiss.
The decision was highly controversial because it was described as a case of “mistaken identity”, which can legitimately be reviewed. But was it truly mistaken identity, given that the player originally cautioned was the one the referee intended to book, and first yellow cards are not reviewable?
I do not believe this was a case of mistaken identity, but I do think it was a fair and effective use of VAR. Embolo clearly dived and deserved a second yellow card. Players already on a booking must be especially careful for the rest of the match, and this is one positive aspect of VAR: it can influence player behaviour. However, VAR should not be used to review and overturn incidents that are not clear and obvious.
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
