Another nerve-shredding match is over. Norway fell in the quarterfinals, and England, riding a one-man rescue act from Jude Bellingham, scraped into the semifinals. And this game, too, left plenty of decisions worth discussing. Below I’ve gathered a few of the questions most commonly seen online to answer and unpack.

Q1: Why was Argentina vs Egypt reviewed, but Norway’s first goal — where Harry Kane was put down first — wasn’t?

This was actually covered in the earlier piece on the VAR intervention rules; it’s a common misconception. As long as a goal is scored, VAR definitely reviews it, but if VAR also feels there was no foul, it won’t specifically call the referee over to look.

And on this one, the slow-motion actually shows a clean tackle to win the ball, with Harry Kane doing most of the exaggerating. So it’s entirely reasonable that after the review, the referee wasn’t sent to take another look.

Q2: Norway’s second goal was ruled out because Haaland shoved a defender — but defenders were grappling all game, so why does Haaland fighting back get chalked off?

First, it’s true that defenders were tussling all game, but football is by nature a contact sport, so the referee has discretion. This goal got a VAR review for the same reason as the first goal: because it involved a goal.

That said, on this one the referee actually did say that since the shove wasn’t decisively connected to the resulting goal, the goal stood. The awkward part is that the foul occurred before the corner was taken, and in that kind of situation, retaking the corner is indeed the more common ruling. So you can say the call went somewhat against Norway, but in terms of reasonableness, it followed convention and there’s no big problem with it.

Q3: England’s penalty was overturned — there was clearly a shove, so why no penalty?

For this one, you can again refer to the Julián Álvarez tripping Salah case from the earlier VAR rules piece.

When the referee’s mic was open, he clearly said he felt the contact was caused by England’s attacker himself sticking his leg into the defender’s path. So responsibility for the contact should fall on the attacker — just like the Salah incident, where he stuck his own leg out, caused contact, and then fell. The consistency on this across the whole tournament has been the same, so there’s no problem here either.

Q4: England’s first goal — Norway’s keeper clearly hit an object off the pitch on the goal kick, deflecting it to England’s feet, so by the rules shouldn’t it be retaken and the goal disallowed?

Honestly, I think this is the single most debatable call of the whole match. FIFA’s official explanation was that the chip inside the ball didn’t detect a collision. But from the ball’s flight path, it really didn’t look like a natural curve.

This one also drags up the question of chip-detection accuracy, and the “hair’s-width offside” from Croatia vs Portugal got dragged back into the conversation again. If you trust the chip earlier and then distrust it later, the earlier team will surely protest, so keeping a consistent approach across a single tournament is a must. All you can say is this one might, like England’s Frank Lampard goal back in 2010 (why is it always you, England) that eventually spawned goal-line technology, push forward the next update of chip technology.

Was Sørloth Selfishly Playing Hero by Not Passing to Haaland on the 2-on-1 Counter?

That covers the refereeing calls. Now, the other much-discussed talking point: Norway’s number seven, Alexander Sørloth, not passing to Haaland on a 2-on-1 counter, costing Norway a chance to take the lead.

First off, a lot of fans who only follow the World Cup may not really know who Alexander Sørloth is. He’s a striker at Atlético Madrid in La Liga — yes, he normally plays the same position as Haaland. He’s also a left-footed player, and his role in the Norway national team should really lean more toward being Haaland’s backup than a winger. Oscar Bobb should be Norway’s better answer at right wing.

So why would Norway’s head coach field him at right wing? Only the coach truly knows, but my personal guess is he wanted a second target for aerial balls, and rated his physicality, so he could offer a threat with his strength and on the counter. Relatively speaking, though, his technical ability on the ball can only be described as mediocre.

And on that play, England defender John Stones’s recovery run was superb, cutting off both Sørloth’s left-footed shooting angle and the through-ball line to Haaland, forcing Sørloth to deal with it on his relatively weaker right foot. Here’s another common misconception: many people think a professional footballer, even on his weaker foot, should have a basic level of passing, right? But in fact, plenty of pros can handle their weaker foot fine in normal situations, yet on a huge stage like the World Cup they aren’t necessarily confident with it — some would rather improvise with the outside of their stronger foot than use the weaker one, let alone a player like Sørloth who was never known for his technique. And in those fractions of a second while he hesitated over how to deal with it, England’s recovery had arrived.

So did Sørloth handle that play badly? Yes, he handled it terribly. But that’s the risk the coach signed up for by putting him at right wing, and it’s exactly why Norway weren’t fancied for the title beforehand — their wingers genuinely aren’t world class.

As for the “the Whole Team Won’t Pass to Haaland” Take

As for those taking it to the extreme — that Sørloth just wanted to be the hero, that he’s jealous of Haaland and wanted to go it alone to boost his value, or even that the whole Norway team won’t pass to Haaland, “look how many touches Messi gets, Norway don’t build everything around Haaland”… I can only say, that’s a bit much.

If Sørloth really just wanted to be the hero and go alone, he’d have accelerated, cut inside and shot, and the result would probably have been at least a corner. It was precisely because he wanted to pass today that he slowed down and hesitated so much looking for the passing window — which happens to be the very thing he’s worst at. And Haaland did get few touches this game, but that’s because England’s defensive plan was exactly that: they’d rather concede the touchline than not keep one or two men glued to Haaland at all times. So you could actually see Norway getting plenty of chances out wide this game — even Norway’s first goal came because Haaland dragged a defender away, giving Andreas Schjelderup a 1-on-1 in that spot. It’s just that, over the whole game, Norway’s wingers genuinely lacked the destructive power to face world-class defending, so even in one-on-one situations they struggled to create. That’s England’s defensive plan working, not Norway refusing to pass to Haaland.

And as for those comparing Messi’s and Haaland’s number of touches… go watch some other sport. Football might be too hard for your intelligence, so don’t force yourself to keep up with the trend. Who says you have to watch the world’s most-watched sport just because it’s popular? Most people in the world have a brain, and you’ve made it this far without one, so forge your own path, kid, and don’t just follow the crowd.