Video: refereeing expert explains… Why was Belgium’s penalty awarded against Senegal?

Belgium’s penalty kick award against Senegal in the 2026 World Cup round of 32 has sparked much controversy after the refereeing team needed a lengthy review using Video Assistant Referee (VAR) technology before making a final decision.

During the match, referee Said Martinez assisted by video referee Guillermo Pacheco Larios, it took nearly 7 full minutes to review the shot before Belgium were awarded a penalty.

Youri Thielemans scored the decisive winner for Belgium against Senegal (3-2) from the penalty spot late in the second extra period, the latest goal in World Cup history.

The European team qualified to meet the hosts, the United States of America, in the Round of 16. Find out the match day and the remaining matches that are scheduled.

What happened?

Thielemans came out to follow a Senegalese cross into the box before going down after a tackle by Senegalese midfielder Lamine Kamara.

The referee initially did not make any fouls, and also ignored the appeals of the Belgian footballers for a penalty.

But the video assistant referee intervened and asked the referee to go to the review screen to consider a penalty kick for Belgium.

The VAR room took a long time to analyze the kick before seeing Lamin Kamara tackle Thielemans from behind without touching the ball, only for the referee to be advised to review the replay on the side screen.

After a few minutes of review, the referee was convinced that there was a foul and awarded a penalty in favor of the Belgian team.

The Senegalese defender got involved himself

In his turn, former English referee Andy Davies said: “For the national team of Senegal, this decision will seem very harsh, because the contact of Lamin Kamara on the back of the leg of Tillmans was very limited.”

He added via the network ESPN: “However, from a refereeing point of view, a defender who makes such interventions without touching the ball and then kicks an attacker’s leg is putting himself at risk of being fouled.”

The English specialist explained that when the referee went to the viewing screen, it was difficult for him not to award a penalty, especially since the footage shown by the video referee showed clear contact between the defender and the forward without playing the ball.

Davis concluded his analysis of the shooting by saying: “However, given the strict standards surrounding video technology interference in the current tournament, the decision remains one of those cases that could have gone either way.”