2018 fifa world cup™ , translation in russia fifa world cup 2018

     

We look at every decision a referee has had lớn make when directed lớn review an incident on the monitor at the side of the pitch. So far the referee has changed his mind on every penalty Gọi và given a spot kiông chồng. The only decision that has not been changed following a VAR review was to show a red thẻ lớn Serbia"s Aleksandar Prijovic, though he was correctly booked.

Bạn đang xem: 2018 fifa world cup™ , translation in russia fifa world cup 2018

We also consider the times the match referee has not been asked to lớn nhận xét when perhaps VAR should have done so.


VAR nhận xét rated: 33Total points: 251Average rating: 7.61

Ivan Perisic"s handball came in the world"s biggest football game.Ryan Pierse/Getty ImagesSunday, July 15: France vs. Croatia

Just when we thought the latter stages of the World Cup had been untouched by the controversy of VAR, it made an appearance in the final. France played in a corner from the right, Blaise Matuidi attempted to flichồng it on & when Ivan Perisic knocked it behind for another corner the French players strongly appealed for handball.

Argentine referee Nestor Pitana waited for advice from the VAR before going lớn watch a pitchside Review. There is no doubt that the ball hit Perisic"s h&, & there was a small movement towards the ball. But as we have seen in the rest of this article, every time the ball has hit a defender"s arm in the penalty area, & VAR has reviewed, a penalty has been given.

VAR RATING: 7/10 Many will not feel this was a "clear and obvious error" & should have not been reviewed, or it was "deliberate" from Perisic, but what we vì chưng have here is consistency from VAR across the whole tournament on handball -- lượt thích it or not.

Friday, July 6: Brazil vs. Belgium

This is going to be a controversial one. Gabriel Jesus was running towards goal when Vincent Kompany came across & made a challenge. The Brazil players immediately appealed but referee Milorad Mazic pointed for a goal kiông xã. VAR indicated it was reviewing the incident but after a short while gave the official the green light to lớn continue play.

TV replays -- especially one from the rear as Jesus was running -- looked damning. However, this was a difficult one for VAR. The first contact on Jesus, when Kompany"s foot touched his shin, was very slight. It would not have sầu been enough to lớn cause the fall that Jesus suffered, & the Laws of the trò chơi are clear than contact alone does not automatically mean a foul. FIFA"s VAR press conference at the end of the group stage made this clear -- force of contact is important. Therefore, with the liên hệ really only being a touch, the VAR will most likely have not considered this serious enough lớn qualify as "a clear & obvious error."

So does VAR consider the secondary move sầu from Kompany"s other leg? Even if that is a foul, which is also doubtful from the side angle, the ball was out of play when contact is made. And if the ball is out, a penalty cannot be given.

All in all here, there is more than enough doubt for the VAR officials to consider this not to be "a clear & obvious error."

Brazil wanted a penalty for Vincent Kompany"s challenge on Gabriel Jesus but their appeals fell on deaf ears.GettyVAR RATING: 8/10 Again, the real problem for VAR here is far too many people vì chưng not know why a decision was reached, or what was even considered. It causes confusion. So while the decision was probably correct, it loses a couple of marks.

Late in the game, Neymar challenged for a high ball with Thomas Meunier & went down screaming for a penalty. Replays showed that the outstretched h& of Meunier definitely touched Neymar"s face, but again tương tác was minimal & the Brazilian"s theatrical fall likely made the liên hệ appear less than it was lớn the VAR -- most of his reaction may have sầu appeared self-made rather than inflicted. A "clear and obvious error"? Difficult to see how it could be judged as such.

VAR RATING: 10/10 Nowhere near enough tương tác lớn give sầu a penalty, & remember again the point about force of liên hệ.

Tuesday, July 3: Sweden vs. Switzerland

Deep inlớn stoppage time Martin Olsson was through on goal for Sweden when he was pushed in the baông chồng by Swiss defender Michael Lang. Referee Damir Skomimãng cầu immediately pointed lớn the spot và showed Lang a red thẻ -- the correct decision as a push cannot be deemed a genuine attempt to lớn play the ball.

However, the VAR indicated to Skomimãng cầu that the offence may have sầu taken place outside the box, and after the official viewed the incident pitch-side he changed his decision from a penalty to a không tính tiền kiông chồng on the edge of the box.

VAR RATING: 8/10 We"ve sầu seen this once before, but decisions over where an offence have sầu taken place should be made by the VAR, with no need lớn refer khổng lồ the match referee. The correct decision was made, but it could have sầu been done much quicker by VAR alone.

Monday, July 2: Brazil vs. Mexico

Neymar & Miguel Layun had tangled a couple of times before the incident midway through the second half. Neymar rolled off the pitch following a challenge from Layun, and when the Mexico player went to retrieve sầu the ball Neymar howled in anguish and behaved like he had suffered a serious injury.

Subsequent replays suggested Layun may have stood on Neymar"s ankle, though the màn chơi of force did not seem khổng lồ be commensurate to lớn the histrionics from the Brazilian. Given the replays seen, it is surprising that the VAR did not ask referee Gianluca Rocđưa ra to lớn take a second look. Some referees would certainly have sầu considered Layun"s actions khổng lồ be violent conduct, but the VAR clearly must have felt it was accidental contact.

VAR RATING: 6/10 No one had any sympathy for Neymar with his reaction, but perhaps the match referee should have sầu been directed to take his own view.

Neymar rolls around on the floor after the clash with Miguel Layun.TATYANA ZENKOVICH/EPA-EFE/REX/ShutterstockSunday, July 1: Spain vs. Russia

The first day of the round of 16 went without any VAR incident, & we had khổng lồ wait until deep into extra time in this game. The ball came into lớn the Russian box and Sergio Ramos tangled with Ilya Kutepov. Referee Bjorn Kuipers waved away the appeal và gave sầu a goal kichồng, with the Spanish players immediately following the official khổng lồ appeal.

VAR instigated a Đánh Giá & looked at the footage, but while Kutepov did have liên hệ, the Real Madrid defender had locked arms và had hold of the Russian"s shirt -- as well as a hand on his opponent"s shoulder. Both were guilty of grappling và VAR was 100 percent correct that this was not a "clear & obvious error".

VAR RATING: 10/10 The very first replays may suggest this should have been a penalty, but there is no doubt both had hold of each other and VAR was correct to lớn Review và to stay with the on-pitch referee.

Thursday, June 28: Senegal vs. Colombia

Sadio Mane was through on goal when Davison Sanchez made a last ditch tackle. Referee Milorad Mazic immediately pointed to lớn the spot, but VAR quickly made the decision to advise the official to lớn watch a replay himself. Mazic didn"t need long to see that Sanchez had got a huge chunk of the ball first and he reversed his decision.

VAR RATING: 10/10 In past World Cups this would have sầu been a massive injustice at a crucial moment in a decisive sầu game. With VAR it can be fixed, and fixed quickly.

Wednesday, June 27: South Korea vs. Germany

The cloông chồng had just ticked over inlớn stoppage time. After a little pinball in the box the ball fell lớn Kyên Young-Gwon, completely unmarked inside the box, và he tucked the ball past Manuel Neuer. As soon as the ball went inkhổng lồ the net the linesman raised his flag for offside, as per VAR protocol if he has any doubt.

Where VAR strayed slightly is sending the Reviews to lớn the match referee. Factual decisions, such as offside, should be decided by the VAR alone. It"s not a hard and fast rule, as the match referee can still request khổng lồ look, but here there was no need khổng lồ sover it downstairs. The trả lời very clearly showed that it was Toni Kroos who poked the ball through lớn Kim và the goal should have been given by the VAR.

VAR RATING: 9/10 A huge incorrect offside decision was fixed, but there was no need for a pitchside Reviews. It was factual that the Germany player had played the ball so there could be no offside.

Mexico v Sweden

Javier Hernandez"s heart was in his mouth when he tried lớn chest the ball down inside the area. Several Sweden players appealed for handball immediately but referee Nestor Pitana waved away the claims. When the ball went out of play, the official held up the restart before VAR instructed hlặng khổng lồ take another look on his pitch-side monitor.

Though there was certainly some evidence the ball may have hit Hernandez"s arm, it wasn"t certain whether it had hit the side of his chest first (and thus neutralising any handball appeal) or in fact if it had hit his arm at all. Perhaps the probability was that it did hit his arm, so Hernandez was a little lucky the referee stayed with his original decision.

VAR RATING: 8/10 Pitana was within his rights khổng lồ reject the nhận xét if he did not feel he had made a clear & obvious error. Other referees might have pointed to the spot.

Switzerland vs. Costa Rica

Costa Rica"s Bryan Ruiz was through on goal when he tangled with Ricarvị Rodriguez, và referee Clement Turpin pointed khổng lồ the spot. VAR did its usual kiểm tra and it soon became apparent that Ruiz was in an offside position when the ball was nodded onto lớn him, though the penalty award itself was soft và may well have been subject to a full Reviews.

The VAR chalked off the penalty as soon as it became clear there was an offside offence before the foul.

VAR RATING: 10/10 VAR didn"t send the nhận xét down lớn the referee as in the Germany vs. South Korea game. There is no need as it"s a factual decision. Perfect application.

Tuesday, June 26: Nigeria vs. Argentina

Marcos Rojo tried to lớn head the ball, but only managed lớn nod it onto lớn his own arm. Referee Cuneyt Cakir waved away the appeals of Nigeria striker Odion Ighalo, but the VAR decided that it needed a closer look from the match official. Cakir went over to his screen và quickly rejected the chance to lớn change his mind.

Deflections off the same defender should not lead to lớn a penalty award for handball, so why VAR initiated a full reviews is perplexing. Nigeria captain John Obi Mikel, though. was left confused và frustrated.

VAR RATING: 6/10 The referee was svào khổng lồ correctly stiông chồng to his original decision, but there should never have been a review.

Monday, June 25: Iran vs. Portugal

Enrique Caceres was a frequent VAR booth visitor & gave two penalties, while also opting not skết thúc off Cristiano Ronalbởi vì.Maja Hitij/FIFA via Getty ImagesVAR did not have sầu its greakiểm tra game. First, five sầu minutes after half-time, Cristiano Ronalvị went down in the box under a challenge from Saeid Ezatolahi. Paraguayan referee Enrique Caceres reviewed the incident và gave sầu the penalty, which was saved by Alireza Beiranvvà. While there was definitely tương tác between Ronalbởi & Ezatolahi, it was minimal.

VAR RATING: 6/10 Was it a "clear và obvious error"? There is little difference between this & the penalty Marcus Berg did not get -- và which was not reviewed -- for Sweden against Germany. So consistency is an issue. Many will agree with the change of decision, but it would not be reviewed in other circumstance. Down, initially, lớn the opinion of the VAR of course. It also meant there had been more penalties awarded in the 2018 World Cup in Russia than in any previous edition.

Later, play seemed to be stopped for an age when Ronalvì chưng caught Morteza Pouraliganji with an arm. VAR told Caceres to view it on his screen và watch it he did, time & again. It"s questionable whether the incident should have been reviewed, và it took far too long lớn reject the red thẻ and book Ronalbởi vì (as the referee is allowed to). Peter Walton, a former English Premier League referee, thinks Cristiano Ronalbởi vì should have sầu been sent off -- but VAR should not have sầu intervened. This all came after Iran coach Carlos Queiroz criticised the VAR system the day before the game, và he later said the system failed on the Ronaldo red card Review.

VAR RATING: 6/10 The correct decision was probably made but the length of time was too long. That alone should tell the referee that nothing is "clear và obvious."

In second-half added time came the decision that cost Portugal top spot in the group. The ball hit Cedric Soares" arm from point-blank range and there was literally nothing he could bởi about it. The penalty Denmark"s Yussuf Poulsen conceded vs. Australia was questionable, but this seemed on another level.

VAR RATING: 2/10 It only gets that high a mark because at least the ball did hit Cedric"s arm. But this is not the sort of decision VAR should be changing. VAR should be fixing obvious mistakes và injusticies, this simple cannot be considered as such.

Spain vs. Morocco

Iago Aspas scored in the 91st minute lớn bring Spain baông xã on màn chơi terms at 2-2. As soon as the ball hit the baông xã of the net the linesman put his flag up for offside, as per protocol. Immediately, VAR looked at the incident and the calibrated lines showed that Morocco"s Mbark Boussoufa played Aspas onside with his baông chồng foot. Morocteo midfielder Younes Belhanda claimed VAR "is just big teams" after the game, but the fact is Aspas was onside. That said, VAR worked against Morocco on several occasions during the tournament.

VAR RATING: 10/10 Rethành viên the furore over the disallowed Iran goal vs. Spain? This is exactly what would have sầu happened if that Iran player had been onside despite the offside flag going up. This is what VAR should be used for.

Saudi Arabia vs. Egypt

This was a first as the referee rejected the chance khổng lồ reverse a penalty award after reviewing on his pitch-side monitor. Ali Gabr of Saudi Arabia was adjudged lớn have pushed Fahad Al-Muwallad over inside the area and referee Wilmar Roldan pointed to the spot.

VAR"s initial reviews led lớn Roldan taking a look himself, và after what seemed like an age in discussion with the officials in the control-room he stayed with his original decision.

Xem thêm: Công Thức Tính Giá Đất Khi Chuyển Đất Nông Nghiệp Sang Đất Ở

Two different camera angles gave a very different impression, but there seemed very little in the contact from Gabr. The VAR official clearly felt it was suspect but Roldan -- the referee who coincidentally didn"t give sầu anything for the grappling on England"s Harry Kane vs. Tunisia -- rejected that.

VAR RATING: 4/10 This again shows that VAR will still be all about opinions, but the only one that matters is that of the referee, who clearly did not feel he had made a "clear & obvious error." But this Đánh Giá took far, far too long and there should have been more than enough doubt to cancel the penalty.

Sunday, June 24: Englvà vs. Panama

Harry Kane completed his hat trick when Ruben Loftus-Cheek"s shot hit his heel và flew inlớn the back of the net. There was an immediate VAR check, and then a review, for offside against the striker. On first trả lời it looked lượt thích Kane was offside, but once the enhanced pictures with calibrated lines were shown it was clear that Gabriel Gomez"s heel had played hyên onside.

VAR RATING: 10/10 Fine example of a Đánh Giá which has fine margins but correct calibrated lines conclusively prove onside.

Saturday, June 23: Germany vs. Sweden

Jerome Boateng tangles with Marcus Berg inside the area.RONALD WITTEK/EPA-EFE/REX/ShutterstockMarcus Berg was through on goal and appeared all set khổng lồ pull the trigger when Jerome Boateng made tương tác from the side. This caused Berg to lớn thua his stride slightly and the ball ran through to goalkeeper Manuel Neuer.

Referee Szytháng Marciniak -- who denied Argentina"s Cristian Pavon a penalty against Iceland -- waved away the penalty appeals. While Boateng & Berg definitely came together, was it a "clear & obvious error"? It doesn"t seem completely clear-cut & as such it"s no surprise there was no VAR nhận xét. Boateng using his body strength does not immediately mean a penalty.

VAR RATING: 7/10 Doesn"t get a higher rating as there remains uncertainty about what constitutes a "clear & obvious error."

Friday, June 22: Brazil vs. Costa Rica

Neymar went down under a challenge from Giancarlo Gonzalez, falling backwards when the defender"s arm was on his chest, & referee Bjorn Kuipers immediately pointed to lớn the spot. The VAR advised the referee khổng lồ take another look at the incident and he overturned his decision, though didn"t book Neymar for a dive. It was the first time VAR overturned a penalty at the World Cup.

VAR RATING: 10/10 - Perfection again here in overturning the penalty. The contact on Neymar from Gonzalez"s arm was minimal & should not have made the Brazilian go down as he did. But neither was it a dive sầu, so the referee was correct not to lớn book hyên.

Neymar was felled by Giancarlo Gonzalez but the awarded penalty was overturned.GIUSEPPE CACACE/AFP/Getty ImagesSerbia vs. Switzerland

If the Harry Kane incidents vs. Tunisia raised an eyebrow, this arched up both of them. With the score at 1-1, Aleksandar Mitrovic appeared khổng lồ be held down in the box by both Stephan Lichtsteiner & Fabian Schar when a cross came in but referee Felix Brych gave a foul against the Serbia striker. Replays suggest Mitrovic had an elbow in the face of Schar, & as already explained fouls by both teams at the same time will neutralise any đánh giá.

There was a technical reason for VAR not to lớn go khổng lồ full nhận xét, but lớn the average người this is not obvious and it looks lượt thích an error.

VAR RATING: 3/10 It gets a three as there is at least a reason why there was no official Reviews (though rethành viên VAR checks everything), but the continuing failure lớn penalise holding in the box is only going lớn see it increase. If Mitrovic had his elbow in Schar"s face it was surely only a bi-sản phẩm of being man-handled by two opponents. This should have sầu been reviewed and a penalty awarded. Serbia eventually lost to a late goal, too.

Nigeria vs. Iceland

Icel& were handed a route baông xã into lớn the game when Tyronne Ebuehi caught Alfred Finnbogason in the corner of the box. Initially referee Matthew Conger waved away the penalty clayên ổn from the striker but after a short delay VAR instructed hlặng to take another look & the spot kiông chồng was given. Gylfi Sigurdsson blazed it way off target.

VAR RATING 9/10 Took a little longer than it should have done and the match referee didn"t seem to lớn be given the most conclusive sầu angle to watch, but the correct decision was reached.

Thursday, June 21: Denmark v Australia

Australia were given their second penalty of the World Cup when Mathew Leckie"s header was blocked by arm of Yussuf Poulsen. Denmark counterattacked, with VAR asking Spanish referee Antonio Mateu Lahoz lớn take a second look once the ball went out of play. And Lahoz had no hesitation in pointing to the spot after a quiông xã pitchside Reviews. Denmark"s Christian Eriksen described the penalty awarded to nước Australia as "lucky."

VAR RATING: 7/10 Protocol was followed correctly, but was it 100 percent a penalty? A "clear & obvious" error? It was probably borderline and Poulsen a little unlucky even though he had his arm high in the air when it was hit by the ball. He appeared to have turned away too. Certainly not a penalty everyone will agree with.

France vs. Peru

We had our first yellow card changed due to a case of mistaken identity -- one of the remits of VAR. Referee Mohammed Mohammed Abdulla initially booked Peru"s Edison Flores in the 81st minute. That was correctly changed lớn Pedro Aquino after VAR told the referee that he was the player who had fouled Nabil Fekir.

VAR RATING: 10/10 Perfectly executed

Wednesday, June 20: Iran v Spain

The Iran "equaliser" caused a huge outcry about VAR on social media and among mỏi journalists, yet this was VAR at its finest. The only confusion here was caused by Iran running away and celebrating. But let"s be clear, what happened is no different to lớn a team in the Premier League or La Liga scoring a goal và celebrating without realising the flag had gone up.

From a miễn phí kiông xã, the ball was flicked on by an Iran teammate & it then hit Saeid Ezatolahi, who was in an offside position. As this was a close attacking move sầu in the area, & the linesman could not be sure an Iranian player nodded the ball on, the flag stayed down initially. But as soon as Ezatolahi fired the loose ball inlớn the baông xã of the net, the linesman raised his flag.

Therefore, there was no goal. It was disallowed instantly và the referee stood with his arm raised to lớn indicate an indirect không lấy phí kick. VAR only got involved khổng lồ check offside was the correct decision. If there had been an error, VAR would actually have sầu given the goal lớn Iran. It did not take it away. Earlier in the day FIFA said it had been "extremely satisfied" and said the introduction of Clip assistant referees (VAR) had been a success.

VAR RATING: 10/10 The linesman allowed the attacking play khổng lồ complete before correctly ruling out the goal, a decision that was ratified by VAR.

Iran"s goal was disallowed for offside by the linesman, not VAR.Julian Finney/Getty ImagesPortugal v Morocco

Cristiano Ronaldo went down theatrically under a tackle in box from Nordin Amrabat in the 85th minute. Ronalvày screamed for the penalty, even making the TV sign for a nhận xét. While there did seem to be at least some liên hệ, Ronalbởi vì threw himself lớn the ground well after this point and was definitely looking for the penalty.

There was not enough in it to lớn consider a "clear & obvious error." We have sầu also seen increasing instances of the TV sign being made by players và coaching staff và it could be time to lớn make a point & book players, as was threatened by FIFA pre-tournament.

Ronalbởi could not be booked for diving as this can only happen when a penalty award is overturned.

VAR RATING: 9/10 Correct decision, but time lớn get the yellow thẻ out.

Tuesday, June 19: Russia vs. Egypt

Mohamed Salah was brought down and referee Enrique Caceres gave sầu a free kiông chồng on the edge of the box. The VAR intervened và instructed the referee to give sầu a penalty as the foul continued into the area. The VAR makes all factual (not subjective) decisions relating to lớn where an offence has taken place (in or out of the area, offside etc.), which is why the referee did not have sầu khổng lồ view the incident himself on the pitchside screen.

VAR RATING: 10/10 Exactly as the system should work.

Monday, June 18: England vs. Tunisia

There were three major incidents in this game. The first came when Kyle Walker caught Fakhreddine Ben Youssef with his arm. The side-on angle was particularly damning for the Manchester City defender, who appeared to lớn throw his arm baông xã. It was not an incident that could have sầu been considered a "clear và obvious error," so VAR was correct lớn allow the penalty as given.

Then Harry Kane had two penalty claims. The main issue here is that while the incidents were reviewed, again no one actually knows why VAR came khổng lồ the decision to not advise review for penalties. Kane definitely appeared to lớn be fouled on both occasions, but match referee Wilmar Roldan was not directed to lớn take a second look.

One explanation is that John Stones had pushed Ellyes Skhiri just before Ferjani Sastê mê pulled down Kane -- và that would rule out the đánh giá. On the second incident, Kane looked like he could have been holding Yassine Meriah"s arm before the Tunisian fell on top of hlặng. But the true reasoning is unclear on both.

VAR RATING: 2/10 There could be valid reasons why England were not awarded penalties, but this is completely unclear lớn those watching.

John Stones pushed Ellyes Skhiri in the baông xã just before the foul on Harry Kane.bacninhtrade.com.vn FCSweden vs. South Korea

Much lượt thích the foul on Cueva of Peru, this was a definite error by referee Joel Aguilar after Klặng Min-Woo"s rash challenge on Viktor Claesson. What was surprising is the VAR instructed Aguilar to stop play while South Korea were on the counterattack. VAR protocol says that play should only be stopped when in a neutral area or when the ball has gone out of play so as not to penalise the opposition if their attack breaks down unnecessarily.

Play being stopped suddenly means the VAR must have known it was a definite penalty. In other leagues holding trials, the VAR would just give a penalty rather that indicate a pitchside đánh giá, but FIFA wants all subjective decisions at the World Cup to be watched by the on-pitch referee.

For the record, if play had carried on and South Korea had scored, that goal would have been wiped out following the VAR Review & the penalty awarded khổng lồ Sweden as the first incident. Sweden coach Janne Andersson thought the use of VAR was unnecessary as the referee should have given the penalty at the time.

VAR RATING: 7/10 Stopping an opposition attaông xã for a pitchside reviews is not protocol. So while the decision was ultimately correct, VAR didn"t quite get to it in the correct way.

Sunday, June 17: Costa Rica vs. Serbia

Late in the game, there was a red-card đánh giá against Serbia"s Aleksandar Prijovic for putting his hand in an opponent"s face. Some questioned why Prijovic was shown a yellow card when only red-card incidents are reviewed. While yellow-thẻ incidents cannot be reviewed, referee Malang Diedhiou was within his rights khổng lồ caution a player following a red-card nhận xét.

VAR RATING: 10/10 Protocol was observed.

Brazil vs. Switzerland

Switzerland equalised when Steven Zuber scored, but replays suggested he gave Mirandomain authority a small push in the bachồng. As with Pavon, the VAR decided not to Đánh Giá lớn referee Cesar Arturo Ramos. This was again surprising as there must have sầu been a good chance he might have disallowed the goal. Brazil also felt Gabriel Jesus should have sầu been awarded a penalty for grappling in the box và have sầu asked FIFA lớn explain both decisions.

VAR RATING: 7/10 The push by Zuber was not a strong one, but many feel it should at least have been sent baông xã khổng lồ the referee. Protocol on the possible red thẻ, & subsequent yellow, was correct.

Saturday, June 16: France vs. Australia

The opening two days were quiet và VAR went unnoticed, but it finally came to lớn fore in Kazan.

Antoine Griezmann was through on goal when he went down under a challenge from Joshua Risdon. VAR indicated lớn the referee that he should review the incident, và history was made when a penalty was awarded.

Contact was minimal, leading some khổng lồ question whether it was a "clear and obvious error." All that matters is what referee Andres Cunha believed after viewing the TV trả lời, & he clearly felt he had made a "clear và obvious error." Penalty khổng lồ France, và Risdon booked for the foul.

VAR RATING: 7/10 Ultimately VAR got the decision correct, but not everyone would agree it was a "clear & obvious error."

Antoine Griezmann is fouled by Joshua Risdon, leading lớn a penalty given through VAR.BENJAMIN CREMEL/AFP/Getty ImagesArgentina vs. Iceland

Cristian Pavon went down in the box under tương tác from Birkir Saevarsson. However, play continued without an official Reviews.


Chuyên mục: Đầu tư