1:18 PM ET

We’re analysing every VAR decision made throughout all 64 games at the 2022 World Cup. Uruguay‘s 2-0 win over Ghana was full of VAR drama — over penalties to both teams.

After each game, we take a look at the major incidents to examine and explain the process in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

– World Cup VAR review in full: Every decision analysed

VAR overturn rejected: Penalty for foul by Amartey on Nunez

What happened: In the 58th minute, Darwin Nunez broke into the box and was challenged by Ghana defender Daniel Amartey. Referee Daniel Siebert waved away claims for a penalty, but the VAR advised he should go to the monitor to review the incident.

VAR decision: No penalty.

Daniel Amartey gets a toe to the ball when tackling Darwin Nunez, but did he foul the striker first? Nick Potts/PA Images via Getty Images

VAR review: For only the second time in the tournament, a referee stuck by his original decision after being sent to the pitchside monitor — and it’s the first time the specific reason for the review has been rejected. In Denmark vs. Tunisia, the referee spotted a foul in the buildup when reviewing a possible handball penalty.

Referee Siebert took a long look at the incident from several angles, and he ultimately concluded he hadn’t made a clear and obvious error in allowing play to continue.

There is no doubt Amartey gets a toe to the ball; the question is whether he fouled Nunez in the process of reaching for it. Some angles suggested he got the Uruguay striker first and then the ball; others were less conclusive.

Some will argue this should have been a spot kick, but it is a borderline decision and you can’t argue with the referee standing by his judgment after he’s been shown all the angles. There’s nothing wrong with the VAR, fellow German Bastian Dankert, advising the review and it being rejected. If reviews were never turned down by the referee, it would suggest that VARs are infallible — which clearly can’t be the case because these are subjective human decisions and not binary.

The ball had hit Nunez’s arm before he was brought down, but this was not assessed. Play restarted with a dropped ball (it wasn’t out of play when the referee spotted the game for the review), rather than a free kick to Ghana in their own penalty area for the handball.

Uruguay had another claim for a penalty in injury time when Edinson Cavani tangled legs with Alidu Seidu. This is similar to Canada’s penalty claim vs. Belgium, when Richie Laryea tangled with Axel Witsel. They are the kind of challenges that are usually left to the on-field decision — whether the referee has given the penalty or not.

Edinson Cavani goes down under contact from Alidu Seidu. PHILIP FONG/AFP via Getty Images

VAR overturn: Penalty for foul by Rochet on Kudus

What happened: In the 15th minute, Jordan Ayew had a shot on goal, which Andre Ayew moved out of the way of. It was palmed out by goalkeeper Sergio Rochet but only as far as Mohammed Kudus. When the Ghana striker got to the ball, Rochet came rushing out and collided with him. But any claims for a penalty were silenced when the offside flag went up against Andre Ayew before the decision was reviewed.

VAR decision: Penalty, Andre Ayew’s effort saved by Rochet.

Mohammed Kudus of Ghana is brought down by Sergio Rochet. Ryan Pierse/Getty Images

VAR review: A simple decision, even if it comes in two parts. The first question is offside against Andre Ayew. Even though he didn’t touch the ball, his movement to allow the shot to pass through to goal would have been an offence. However, FIFA’s offside tech showed that he was being played onside by the trailing boot of defender Mathias Olivera, so the assistant’s flag was incorrect.

With the offside invalidated, it opens up the review for a possible penalty for Rochet’s challenge on Kudus. The striker definitely gets to the ball first before the goalkeeper collides with him, so it came as no surprise that the VAR advised Siebert to review the challenge at the monitor.

The reverse angle gave Siebert the evidence he needed to award the penalty, which was undoubtedly the correct decision. That the ball could have been going out of play doesn’t hold any relevance for the penalty decision.