Women’s World Cup: Why VAR was not the main culprit in controversial Argentina penalty retake which sent Scotland out

When VAR was still just a concept as opposed to a practical consideration, did anyone envisage it being used this way? What was meant to be a panacea for the biggest refereeing errors has fast become a byword for pedantry among fans, with the video assistant referee being consulted – and consulting – on even the most marginal decisions.

It has certainly been a controversial presence at France 2019 so far. Nigeria lost to France on Monday evening after Wendie Renard was allowed to retake a penalty which she had initially missed because Chiamaka Nnadozie, the Nigeria goalkeeper, had strayed marginally off her line. VAR intervened, Renard scored the retake and France went on to win 1-0, a result which could well send Nigeria out of the competition.

Then, on Wednesday evening, Scotland also fell foul of a retaken penalty. Having held a 3-0 lead in the 74th minute only to see it reduced to 3-2 only five minutes later – a situation for which they only have themselves to blame, in fairness – Shelley Kerr’s side conceded a penalty after Sophie Howard caught Aldana Cometti in the box.

Scotland goalkeeper Lee Alexander made a fantastic double save from 12 yards but, much like Nnadozie, she was referred to VAR and penalised. Florencia Bonsegundo scored the retake and, with the game finishing 3-3, Scotland went out.

Naturally, the backlash against VAR has been swift. In this case, however, the problem is not VAR so much as it is the new rules that have come into force.

Rule changes

There is certainly a debate to be had about how VAR is used. Should it really be used for marginal decisions, for instance, or just when the referee asks for help with a big call like a key offside or a potential red card?

As things stand, however, VAR is being used to implement relatively minor rules to the letter of the law. That should direct us to the rules themselves, which in the case of penalties and goalkeepers coming off their line have recently been revised.

As per rule changes which came into force on 1 June: “The goalkeeper must have at least part of one foot on/in line with the goal line when the kick is taken and cannot stand behind the line.”

From one angle, Alexander did appear to have her feet on the line when the penalty was struck:

You tell me if this keeper is off her line. I think this is one of the most harsh VAR rulings I’ve seen and essentially knocked Scotland out of the World Cup. #WWC2019 #VAR pic.twitter.com/qOIY3isHB4

— Emmett McConnell (@emcconnell92) June 19, 2019

The camera behind the goal appeared to show a marginal encroachment, however. By the letter of the law, VAR was correct to award the retake:

So seems like that Scotland v Argentina VAR decision wasn't as close as it appeared on here. Can see the keeper is clearly off the line before ball has been kicked pic.twitter.com/PjhtgO7snp

— Matt W-S (@Yakcall) June 19, 2019

That then brings us to the question of whether the new laws are fit for purpose. Just as the new handball laws defining infringements around a player’s “natural silhouette” have proved highly problematic to implement, so too are the new guidelines around goalkeepers and penalties likely to cause repeated furore.

Though rules against goalkeepers coming a long way off their lines are there for a reason – namely to stop keepers leaping forward to narrow the angles a la Jerzy Dudek in the 2005 Champions League final – not being able to move beyond the goal line at all puts the goalkeeper at a massive disadvantage. There is a degree of natural forward motion involved in making a save and, if goalkeepers are essentially limited to moving horizontally, we are likely to see an almost negligible number of saved penalties.

Whether this is within the spirit of the game is bound to be fiercely contested. Still, the reality is that the new rules are to blame for Scotland’s World Cup exit, not VAR per se.

That’s not to say the way VAR is being used is ideal or even desirable, merely that, in this case, it was technically correct.