Nations League VAR Review: Türkiye Goal Controversy, Northern Ireland Cards and Monday’s Biggest Decisions

Monday’s UEFA Nations League programme produced 21 goals across eight matches, but the most interesting moments for referee watchers came in Bursa and Belfast.

Türkiye had a second goal disallowed against Italy in a decision that raised an important question about offside interference with the goalkeeper, while Barış Alper Yılmaz was also cautioned for simulation earlier in the second half.

Northern Ireland’s physical 0-0 draw with Hungary produced several disciplinary incidents, including the challenge that forced Bendegúz Bolla off injured and another late tackle involving an already-booked Shea Charles.

Belgium also wanted a penalty in the closing seconds against France, while Montenegro’s dramatic winner against Armenia survived a VAR check. Not every Nations League match produced controversy, and a proper referee review should not manufacture one where none existed.

Here is The VAR Verdict’s analysis of the major incidents from Monday, September 28.

Türkiye 1-4 Italy: Was Barış Alper Yılmaz’s disallowed goal really offside?

This was the most interesting VAR decision of the night.

Italy were already 4-1 ahead when Barış Alper Yılmaz found the net again for Türkiye during a much stronger second-half performance by the hosts.

Yılmaz collected the ball, moved into the penalty area and drove an angled shot across Gianluigi Donnarumma. The ball struck the inside of the far post and went in.

At first glance, Yılmaz himself did not appear to be the problem. Instead, the goal was ruled out because another Turkish attacker who had been in an offside position was judged to have interfered with Donnarumma.

That distinction is crucial. A player does not commit an offence simply by standing in an offside position. Under Law 11, that player must become involved in active play.

One way of doing that is by interfering with an opponent, for example by clearly obstructing a goalkeeper’s line of vision or making an obvious action that clearly affects the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball.

So the correct question is not, “Was another Türkiye player offside?” The correct question is, “Did that player actually interfere with Donnarumma?”

Why this decision is debatable

If the offside-positioned attacker was directly between Donnarumma and Yılmaz’s shot, blocked the goalkeeper’s view at the moment of contact, challenged him, or made an obvious movement that affected his attempted save, the goal should be disallowed. That would be a correct application of Law 11.

But simply being somewhere near the goalkeeper is not enough. The Laws require an actual impact.

A player standing in an offside position but not blocking the goalkeeper, challenging him or clearly affecting his ability to play the ball should not normally be penalised. That is why these situations often cause controversy.

TV pictures can make an attacker appear close to the goalkeeper while a different camera angle shows that the goalkeeper still had an unobstructed view of the shot. The key is not distance. The key is interference.

Michael Oliver and the VAR team ultimately decided that the Turkish attacker’s position affected Donnarumma sufficiently for an offside offence. Based on the available descriptions of the incident, however, this remains a decision worth questioning.

If Donnarumma could clearly see the shot and the attacker made no movement that materially affected his ability to save it, then merely occupying an offside position should not be enough.

Preliminary VAR Verdict: DEBATABLE

The decision is correct only if the offside-positioned player clearly interfered with Donnarumma. If the goalkeeper’s line of vision and ability to attempt the save were unaffected, the goal should have stood.

This is exactly the type of incident where UEFA releasing the referee/VAR audio would be useful, because the decisive issue is not the offside position itself but the officials’ interpretation of interference.

Was Barış Alper Yılmaz correctly booked for simulation?

There was another refereeing talking point involving Yılmaz shortly before the disallowed goal.

The Türkiye forward broke behind the Italian defence and moved towards Donnarumma. He then went to ground as the goalkeeper came out.

Oliver did not award a penalty. Instead, he showed Yılmaz a yellow card for simulation.

The important point under Law 12 is that there is a difference between falling without being fouled and deliberately attempting to deceive the referee.

Not every player who falls after avoiding a goalkeeper should automatically be booked. Sometimes an attacker changes direction or loses balance while trying to avoid contact.

A caution is appropriate when the referee judges that the player has deliberately attempted to create the impression that an offence occurred.

In this incident, Donnarumma did not appear to make the contact necessary for a penalty, and Oliver clearly interpreted Yılmaz’s fall as an attempt to win one. If that interpretation is correct, the caution is correct as well.

The VAR Verdict: No penalty. Yellow card for simulation supportable.

Belgium 0-1 France: France had early penalty appeals waved away

Belgium vs France was much quieter from an officiating perspective, although there were appeals at both ends.

During a spell of heavy French pressure in the first half, Bradley Barcola and Désiré Doué both went down inside the Belgium penalty area. Referee Rade Obrenović allowed play to continue.

This is an important reminder that contact inside the box does not automatically equal a penalty. The referee must identify an actual Law 12 offence, such as a trip, push, hold or careless challenge.

VAR will check the situation, but it should not recommend an on-field review merely because another interpretation is possible. There must be a clear and obvious error.

Nothing from the available evidence suggests either early French appeal reached that threshold.

The VAR Verdict: No clear evidence of a missed France penalty.

Did Belgium deserve a penalty in stoppage time?

The more interesting Belgium appeal arrived after Michael Olise’s brilliant 88th-minute goal had given France the lead.

Deep into stoppage time, Matias Fernandez-Pardo played the ball into the French penalty area and it struck Manu Koné. Belgium appealed. No penalty was given.

Whenever the ball strikes a defender inside the penalty area, the first reaction from players and supporters is often to demand handball. But the Laws are more complicated.

Not every contact between the ball and an arm is an offence. The referee has to consider the position and movement of the arm, whether the player has made the body unnaturally bigger and the circumstances in which the ball reached him.

Without clear evidence that Koné’s arm was in an illegal position, VAR should not manufacture a penalty simply because the ball made contact with the defender.

There was no intervention and France held on for the 1-0 win.

Preliminary VAR Verdict: PLAY ON SUPPORTABLE

There is not enough evidence to label this a clear missed handball.

Northern Ireland 0-0 Hungary: Did Isaac Price deserve more than yellow?

The most physical game of Monday’s schedule came at Windsor Park.

Spanish referee Ricardo de Burgos showed four yellow cards to Northern Ireland players, while manager Michael O’Neill was also cautioned.

One of the biggest incidents came in the first half when Isaac Price challenged Bendegúz Bolla. Bolla suffered a painful ankle injury and eventually had to leave the match. Price was booked.

Whenever a player suffers a significant injury following a tackle, it is natural to ask whether the challenge should have resulted in a red card. But the injury itself cannot determine the disciplinary sanction.

Under Law 12, the referee must judge the nature of the challenge. A reckless tackle requires a yellow card. A challenge that uses excessive force or endangers the safety of the opponent becomes serious foul play and requires a red.

Factors include speed, force, point of contact, whether studs are exposed, whether the player is in control of the challenge and whether the opponent’s safety is endangered.

A serious injury can result from a yellow-card tackle. Likewise, a player can escape injury from a challenge that should still be red.

From the available evidence, De Burgos considered Price’s challenge reckless rather than excessive.

Preliminary verdict: YELLOW CARD SUPPORTABLE

The consequence for Bolla was unfortunate, but the injury alone is not enough to upgrade the challenge to a sending-off offence.

Shea Charles and the half-time confrontation

The temperature increased just before half-time.

Northern Ireland captain Shea Charles challenged Dániel Lukács for a high ball, leaving the Hungarian forward on the ground. The incident triggered a confrontation between players from both teams, with Dominik Szoboszlai particularly unhappy.

Referees have several things to assess in aerial challenges:

• Was the player genuinely challenging for the ball?
• Was the arm used as a normal part of jumping, or as a weapon?
• Was the point of contact careless, reckless or excessive?

There was no sending-off. That suggests the officiating team did not see conduct that crossed the serious-foul-play threshold.

Given the speed and physical nature of the game, De Burgos was already dealing with a match in which his disciplinary line was becoming increasingly important.

Should Shea Charles later have received a second yellow?

This may actually have been the more questionable Northern Ireland disciplinary decision.

Later in the match, with Charles already cautioned, he made another mistimed sliding challenge. He stayed on the pitch. Several observers felt the challenge could easily have produced another yellow card.

The fact that a player already has a booking should not change the threshold. A referee should not require a challenge to be “more yellow” simply because the next caution will result in a dismissal.

At the same time, referees are allowed to judge a careless challenge as a foul without a card. The key question is whether Charles acted with disregard to the danger or consequences for his opponent. If so, that is reckless and should result in a yellow card.

Preliminary verdict: BORDERLINE SECOND YELLOW

There was enough in the challenge to make a second caution a credible decision. Calling the failure to dismiss Charles a definite error would require clearer evidence of recklessness, but he was fortunate to remain on the pitch.

It was one of Monday’s most debatable disciplinary calls.

Armenia 2-3 Montenegro: VAR checks dramatic late winner

The most dramatic finish of Monday’s Nations League programme came in Yerevan.

Armenia and Montenegro were level at 2-2 when Aleksa Latković scored in the 89th minute. The celebrations were temporarily delayed while VAR checked the goal. After the review, the original decision was confirmed.

This is how VAR should ideally operate on goals. Every goal is checked for potential offences in the attacking phase, including offside, handball and attacking fouls.

A check does not mean the officials believe something is wrong. It simply means the video team is completing the required process before the restart.

No offence was identified and Montenegro’s winner stood.

The VAR Verdict: Goal correctly confirmed on the available evidence.

Romania 2-4 Bosnia and Herzegovina: Six goals without major VAR drama

Romania and Bosnia produced the highest-scoring game of the evening.

Bosnia raced into a commanding lead before Romania reduced the deficit, but despite the six goals there was no major refereeing incident that changed the match.

That is worth mentioning precisely because modern football coverage often treats every VAR check as controversy. Goals will routinely be checked in the background. If there is no identifiable offence, the check ends and the match continues.

There is no evidence from this game of a major penalty, offside or red-card mistake requiring a deeper VAR verdict.

Sweden 3-1 Poland: Clean night for the officials

Sweden’s 3-1 victory against Poland was another match where football rather than officiating remained the main story.

Benjamin Nygren opened the scoring before Sebastian Szymański equalised. Yasin Ayari restored Sweden’s advantage with an excellent second-half goal before Viktor Gyökeres completed the victory.

There were no major reviewable incidents around the goals that provide a credible basis for an officiating controversy.

The VAR Verdict: No major referee or VAR error identified.

Georgia 0-0 Ukraine and Latvia 0-0 Cyprus: Quiet evenings for VAR

The two remaining matches both finished goalless. Georgia and Ukraine cancelled each other out in Tbilisi, while Latvia and Cyprus also finished 0-0.

Neither match produced a major widely disputed VAR decision.

For refereeing analysis, that matters. The purpose is not to find something wrong in every game.

If there is no significant penalty controversy, red-card incident or incorrectly allowed/disallowed goal, the officials have generally succeeded in keeping the focus on the football.

The biggest decision of the night came in Türkiye vs Italy

Looking across all eight matches, Türkiye’s disallowed goal against Italy is the decision that deserves the most scrutiny.

The important distinction is between an attacker being in an offside position and that attacker actually committing an offside offence. Law 11 is clear: simply standing offside is not enough.

For the goal to be disallowed because of interference with Donnarumma, the attacker must have clearly affected the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball through his line of vision, a challenge, an attempt to play the ball or another obvious action.

If that impact existed, the officials were right. If it did not, Türkiye were wrongly denied a second goal.

The final score was 4-1, so the decision did not decide the winner. That does not make the refereeing question less important.

Correct application of Law 11 should be the same whether the match is level in the 90th minute or one team is already three goals ahead.

The VAR Verdict

Monday was not a disastrous night for UEFA’s officials. Most of the eight Nations League fixtures passed without a major refereeing controversy. But there were several incidents worth reviewing.

• Türkiye vs Italy: Yılmaz’s simulation caution was supportable, but the later disallowed goal deserves closer examination because passive offside becomes punishable only when there is genuine interference with the goalkeeper.
• Belgium vs France: The penalty appeals did not provide strong enough evidence of a clear missed offence.
• Northern Ireland vs Hungary: Price’s yellow card can be supported despite Bolla’s injury, while Shea Charles was fortunate that a later challenge did not become a second caution.
• Armenia vs Montenegro: VAR checked Latković’s late winner and correctly allowed the original goal decision to stand.

The most important lesson comes again from offside. A freeze-frame showing a player beyond the defensive line is only the beginning of the analysis.

If that player does not touch the ball, the officials still have to establish whether he genuinely interferes with an opponent. That difference between offside position and offside offence may be the defining refereeing discussion from Monday’s Nations League matches.

Law references: IFAB Laws of the Game 2026/27 — Law 11, Law 12 and VAR Protocol

Reviewed: September 29, 2026