“Clearly that was not a red card!” Harry Kane erupted in anger and strongly criticized referee Adham Makhadmeh after being fouled in the penalty area by goalkeeper Lionel Mpasi. The captain was extremely furious for not being awarded a penalty and demanded that FIFA review the entire incident.
The controversy erupted in the 43rd minute of England’s Round of 32 clash against DR Congo when Harry Kane burst through on goal, knocked the ball past goalkeeper Lionel Mpasi, and collapsed to the turf inside the penalty area. Referee Adham Makhadmeh waved away England’s desperate appeals, gesturing that the striker had dived, though remarkably he did not show Kane a yellow card for simulation. Kane was incandescent with rage, demanding that FIFA review the entire incident, but the VAR check upheld the on-field decision, leaving England trailing 1-0 at half-time following Brian Cipenga’s seventh-minute strike.
“Clearly that was not a red card!” Harry Kane erupted after the match, his anger still palpable despite his two late goals securing a 2-1 victory and a last-16 meeting with Mexico. The England captain’s fury was echoed by manager Thomas Tuchel, who fumed on the touchline as the decision went against his side. Yet the controversy took an even more dramatic turn when Gianni Infantino, FIFA’s president, made a decision that sent shockwaves through the football world, leaving England’s tournament future in a completely uncertain situation and casting a long shadow over their progression.
The decision not to award the penalty has divided pundits like no other incident in this tournament. Alan Shearer, speaking on BBC, was unequivocal: “There is contact, there is no doubt. For me that is a penalty. Harry might make the most of it but the keeper has come out and his hands are there”. Joe Hart agreed, saying “I would expect that to be given against me”. Yet Wayne Rooney offered a contrasting perspective: “I think he trips himself a bit and jumps into the goalkeeper a little bit. It probably isn’t a penalty”.
The split among legends highlighted just how contentious the incident had become.
Michael Owen, watching from the studio, was scathing in his assessment of the officials. Taking to social media, he posted: “What chance have you got? If that’s not a penalty on Kane, I don’t know what is. Absolute disgrace”. Zlatan Ibrahimovic, working as a pundit for FOX Sports, also weighed in, arguing that Mpasi committed a “clear penalty” and threatened to block fellow analyst Alexi Lalas after Lalas claimed Kane had dived. Thierry Henry sided with Ibrahimovic, questioning why VAR didn’t advise the referee to check the pitchside monitor. The debate became a war of words among football’s biggest names.
Former Premier League referee Graham Scott, however, defended Makhadmeh’s decision, providing a revealing insight into the officiating mindset. Scott explained that “by dragging his left foot into the onrushing goalkeeper, Kane created doubt in the referee’s mind,” adding that “Kane goes to great lengths to ensure that contact occurs, plants both feet on the ground and falls theatrically – all clues to the referee that the England striker was having him on”. Scott praised the referee for “standing strong” against the pressure, concluding: “Fair play to Makhadmeh for standing strong”.
This perspective explained why the VAR team, led by Khamis Al Marri, also chose not to intervene.
The VAR review process itself has come under intense scrutiny. According to an explainer from The Athletic, FIFA refereeing chief Pierluigi Collina had recently clarified that if the VAR and Assistant VAR disagree over a penalty incident, the referee should be sent to the pitchside monitor. That process was followed during France’s match against Senegal, but for England’s incident, the most likely explanation is that both VAR officials were in complete agreement that it was not a penalty, leading them to believe there had been no “clear and obvious” error.
This consistency, or lack thereof, has left many questioning the VAR protocols.
Former Select Group referee Andy Davies offered a damning verdict on the VAR process, stating: “I have no doubt this should have been a penalty, and England should feel unfortunate”. Davies explained that the responsibility is on the keeper to either win the ball or avoid contact, and Mpasi “failed on both fronts and slid into Kane, making no contact on the ball”.
However, he noted that the VAR surprisingly checked the challenge in slow motion, which “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”.
The secret that Infantino’s decision revealed is the immense pressure that referees face from FIFA’s top brass to maintain consistency, even when it means denying a clear penalty. Sources close to the refereeing community suggest that FIFA have instructed VAR officials to set a higher bar for intervention at this tournament, with very few interventions made regarding minimal contact incidents. This directive, aimed at keeping the game flowing and avoiding accusations of VAR overreach, backfired spectacularly in this instance. Infantino’s decision to publicly back the referee’s judgment, despite the widespread criticism, has left England’s future in a precarious position.
The England captain, despite his fury, delivered when it mattered most. Kane headed home Anthony Gordon’s cross in the 75th minute and smashed in an 86th-minute winner to spark jubilant scenes on the England bench. His brace secured England’s passage to face co-hosts Mexico on Monday, 6 July. Yet the controversy has not subsided. With Infantino’s decision to stand firmly behind the officials, England now face an uncertain path, where every marginal call could be the difference between glory and heartbreak.
The debate over whether Kane dived or deserved a penalty will rage on, but one thing is certain: the decision has exposed the fault lines in FIFA’s VAR protocols. Infantino’s decision to back the referee has set a precedent that could haunt England throughout the remainder of the tournament. The “clear and obvious” threshold, designed to protect the integrity of the game, now appears to protect referees from accountability, leaving players and fans alike questioning what constitutes a penalty in this World Cup. England’s tournament future now hangs in the balance, with every match potentially shaped by similar controversies.
