VAR Diving Decision Sparks Debate Despite Initial Approval
Paraguay forward Miguel Almiron (centre) was surprised when Dutch referee Danny Makkelie booked him for diving during Paraguay's 4-1 loss to the United States.
The World Cup has begun with four matches, three opening ceremonies, wins for two host nations, and an entertaining draw featuring an impressive performance from the third. Despite concerns about ticket prices and restricted access for officials and players, the tournament itself has started well.
As the schedule intensifies with eleven consecutive days featuring four matches each, followed by three days with six matches, fans are adjusting to various kickoff times and new rule changes that have caused confusion among players, coaches, supporters, and viewers alike.
Below is an explanation of some of these changes.
VAR, Timewasting, and Substitutions: Understanding World Cup Law Changes
Right Outcome, Wrong Decision?
VAR Intervenes on Mistaken Identity
During the second half of the USA vs Paraguay match, referee Danny Makkelie stopped play after Antonee Robinson cleared the ball from the US penalty area. Initially, the reason was unclear. It was later revealed that Spanish VAR Carlos del Cerro Grande had summoned Makkelie to review a yellow card issued to US captain Tim Ream for fouling Miguel Almiron.
Since Almiron had not been fouled, Makkelie rescinded the caution from Ream and instead booked Almiron for simulation. This appeared to be an application of the revised 'mistaken identity' rule and was widely welcomed.
"Good spot and the right decision I may add. That's the main thing," said BBC commentator Danny Murphy. "Any adaptation of the rules that means diving gets punished is good."
However, the decision may have been legally incorrect. According to the International Football Association Board (Ifab), mistaken identity applies only when a referee has clearly penalised the wrong player for the same offence. The offence itself cannot be reviewed. The rule does not cover booking an opposing player for simulation when another player committed a foul.
Well-informed sources told that Makkelie's decision was wrong despite seeming appropriate. FIFA has not yet clarified the matter.
Former England defender Phil Jagielka supports punishing diving.
"I'm a defender, so I don't mind," he told . "Stuff like this, it's got to help. Tim Ream gets booked - he could end up getting sent off, and he's physically not touched someone.
"It's hard for the referees to get every decision correct. If something like that does happen, where there's obviously not been contact and it's been simulated and the referee has fallen for it, why not reverse it?
"The only thing is, what happens if I touch you a tiny bit and then you dive? You can't reverse it, because I've touched you, even though my touch hasn't made you collapse and fall over. Where do you draw the line?"
Could VAR Eliminate Diving at the World Cup?
Analysis: A Complex Situation
The numerous law changes introduced by Ifab and FIFA for this World Cup have contributed to referees encountering difficulties.
On the surface, overturning Ream's yellow card to book Almiron for simulation seemed reasonable and aligned with fan expectations of VAR intervention. However, this was not the intended use of the mistaken identity rule and appears incorrect under both the law and VAR protocol.
In briefings over the past six months, head of referees Pierluigi Collina did not mention diving in connection with mistaken identity. Collina has implemented many checks to avoid injustice, including reviews for corners, free-kicks, and second yellow cards.
In pursuit of perfection, the system has instead created confusion.
Collina introduced the law change concerning cautions issued to the wrong player for the same offence following Euro 2016's final, where Laurent Koscielny was booked for handball actually committed by Portugal's Eder. In the USA game, Ream's foul was changed to simulation by Almiron — different offences.
Additionally, the VAR review occurred after play had restarted with a Paraguay free-kick, which under VAR protocol is not permitted.
Had Paraguay scored from that set-piece, the implications would have been significant.
It is likely FIFA will need to clarify this issue to manage fan expectations regarding VAR's role in diving decisions.
Two Halves or Four Quarters?
When FIFA announced in December the introduction of mandatory three-minute hydration breaks regardless of weather conditions, the announcement received little attention. The expectation was high temperatures and prioritizing player welfare.
So far, heat has not been a major factor. Three of the first four matches were played in temperatures just above 20°C. The Canada vs Bosnia match in Toronto, played in the afternoon, saw temperatures reach 26°C, similar to conditions experienced in Chicago during a Premier League Summer Series match last July.
At that time, West Ham manager Graham Potter, now Sweden's coach, was skeptical about hydration breaks.
"I have no idea why there was a water break," Potter said. "Somebody needs to tell me why that was the case. I assumed there wasn't going to be one because I came out with a jumper."
Before the USA's 4-1 victory over Paraguay in Los Angeles, USA coach Mauricio Pochettino expressed doubts about the necessity of the breaks.
"I don't like it," he said. "I only like it when the conditions are extreme, but when the conditions are good, it is unnecessary."
Coaches are permitted to provide tactical instructions during these breaks. Ifab rules allow the use of electronic devices for player welfare, safety, or tactical reasons, provided the device is small.
Another potential benefit is financial, as broadcasters have used the breaks to air commercials. However, US network Fox faced criticism for not returning to live action promptly during the Mexico vs South Africa match.
"They're doing it for safety reasons, but in effect we're playing quarters now, which I find strange," said Jagielka.
"It's literally play for 25 minutes and stop for little bit of a break.
"I understand it - there's going to be a lot of football, a lot of minutes. You need to prevent people pulling muscles and allow them to get the hydration in.
"But does it need to be three minutes? How long does it take? It could be a minute."
Regardless of the physical necessity, Jagielka believes coaches gain significant advantages from the breaks, especially if their team is underperforming.
"That three minutes could be massive," he said. "If your team's not doing well, and it's a loud stadium, it's nigh on impossible to get messages on [to players].
"If you're a manager or coach, you'll be delighted because you can get the lads together and be quickly firing as much information into them as possible.
"I'd say it's more important than half-time. Obviously, at half-time you might be able to show things on a camera or have a bigger view of tactically what's going on, but, especially if your team's not doing great, you could literally turn a game around in that break with what can go on in those three minutes."
Five-Second Throw-In Rule
Fans are becoming accustomed to referees signaling and counting down as goalkeepers release the ball, following the eight-second rule implemented since August 2025.
However, some players appear to have forgotten that a five-second rule applies to throw-ins to accelerate the game pace. When a referee suspects timewasting, they raise their hand and begin the countdown.
For example, Bosnia-Herzegovina left-back Sead Kolasinac was penalized in Toronto when Argentine referee Facundo Tello awarded Canada a throw-in after Kolasinac delayed.
- Play 's new World Cup predictor game
- World Cup fixtures and group standings
- How to watch the World Cup on the BBC
- Everything you need to know about the World Cup
