VAR review: England deserved penalty for foul on K...

2hAndy Davies

1hNina Hristova

4hPA

15hESPN News Services

6hESPN

20hESPN News Services

2hPA

10hAdriana Garcia

6hAssociated Press

16hESPN staff

8hSam Borden

8hJeff Carlisle and Julien Laurens

18mESPN

12hRob Dawson

11hCesar Hernandez

6hRyan O'Hanlon

4hRyan O'Hanlon

5hChris Wright

1dRob Dawson and James Olley

9hSam Tighe and Bill Connelly

6hESPN

19hGabriele Marcotti and Julien Laurens

23hMark Ogden

1dConnor O'Halloran

12hAlex Kirkland

1dRoberto José Andrade Franco

1dChris Wright

23hSam Marsden

Andy Davies

Jul 1, 2026, 01:39 PM ET

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.

England vs. Congo DR

Referee: Adham Mohammad Tumah Makhadmeh

VAR: Khamis Al Marri

Time: 43 minutes

Incident: Possible penalty to England

What happened: England striker Harry Kane was put through on goal, rounded the keeper and appeared to be tripped as Congo DR goalkeeper Lionel Mpasi slid out to challenge. The referee waved away the penalty appeals.

VAR decision: VAR checked and cleared the on-field decision of no penalty.

Another look at England's play in the box with Harry Kane where no penalty was called pic.twitter.com/FrXIBdg9tz

— FOX Sports (@FOXSports) July 1, 2026

VAR review: The on-field decision is always the starting point for any VAR review, and only if there is clear video evidence on the replays that an obvious error has been made will the VAR recommend a review.

In this incident, the VAR clearly felt there was enough doubt that any contact by the keeper was not the key factor in Kane going to ground, and therefore did not intervene.

Verdict: I have no doubt this should have been a penalty, and England should feel unfortunate.

When an attacker shifts the ball wide of a keeper while moving at pace, the responsibility is on the keeper to either win the ball or avoid contact with the attacker. Mpasi failed on both fronts and slid into Kane, making no contact on the ball.

The non-intervention, however, did not surprise me. The VAR amazingly checked this challenge in slow motion, which was odd, as this would have put a level of doubt in the VAR's mind that Kane tried to win a penalty as opposed to the incident being a foul by the keeper.

These situations need to be reviewed at real speed, and the fact it wasn't has certainly cost England a spot kick.