Coaches still smarting over VAR call that cost Reggae Boyz

Jamaica’s Reggae Boyz 2026 World Cup qualification aspirations came to an end against the Democratic Republic of Congo in the Intercontinental Play-offs in Mexico over a week ago, but there is still a wrinkle for those closest to the game.

The nature of the Boyz’s exit continues to be a point of discussion, with video footage showing Axel Tuanzebe’s arm getting a touch before the ball crossed the line in the 0-1 loss.

The regulation period had failed to produce a winner in the World Cup play-off game against the Africans, and Tuanzebe’s goal from a corner in the 100th minute proved decisive, as it booked Congo’s place at the World Cup tournament.

Reggae Boyz coach for the two play-off games, Rudolph Speid, insists they were hard done by the video assistant referee (VAR).

“If you look at the replay, that goal should not have been awarded, and VAR always go against us. In the [National] Stadium (against Curacao) it was the same thing. We got a penalty and VAR overruled it. With DR Congo we drew in full time, and I think VAR beat us,” he stated.

Views among local football experts on the subject vary.

Veteran coach and analyst Calvert Fitzgerald said it is inexplicably that VAR allowed Tuanzebe’s goal, and believes the only credible explanation is the proximity of a Jamaican defender when the ball was deflected on to the player’s hand, although Tuanzebe was more than three metres away from Joel Lattibeaudiere, who diverted the ball at the near post with a header.

“The only explanation I can think of is that VAR looked at it and they have all the angles. But in recent times, officials are not giving a goal if somebody is close to you and the ball touched your hand. I don’t know if that is what they are saying. It didn’t look that way to me. So I don’t understand it, but that is the only explanation that I could say they can use.

“They call it ‘proximity to the person’. If he is running in and the ball touched a person before touching a hand, they do not normally call penalty or reprimand players for it, but because it caused a goal, even if the player did not willfully handle the ball, it allowed the goal to be scored,” he said.

“To be honest, I do not understand the call, but that is the only explanation they could have. If your hand causes the ball to go into the goal, whether it is accidental or not, I don’t think a goal should be awarded for it. You wouldn’t caution a player for it, but you would call the hands and disallowed the goal,” he pointed.

Another highly respect and experienced coach, Andrew Price, said sometimes the luck of the dice goes against you. Although he thought it was a hand ball and the goal should be waived off, he thinks the team did enough to win the game.

“VAR was utilised and they found the goal a genuine goal; and once the game is blown off, that’s the final decision. Sometimes it’s unfortunate; maybe if we had scored a goal we wouldn’t have to depend on that, but that is the luck of the game.

“Sometimes it runs against you and sometimes it runs for you, and in this case it didn’t go in our favour. It’s unfortunate, but that is how the game is sometimes,” he reasoned.

However, he added that once the ball came off the hand, the goal should not be given, and that VAR does get it wrong sometimes.

“The angle I saw it originally from, I didn’t see it as a hand ball. It was after the game that I saw the reverse angle and saw that it was definitely a hand ball. The player basically bundled the ball over the line (with hand).

“The fact that VAR allowed the goal to stand was one of those nuances of the game where VAR can get it wrong, too.”

Former FIFA referee and FIFA instructor Peter Prendegast believes the hand ball was inconclusive and that VAR had no choice but to allow the goal.

“You have to be able to determine ‘yes’ or ‘no’. When you enlarge the image, the ball passed his hand already. When I look at it, it looked like the ball had already passed his hand. The image is not a good image.

“It would be strange if VAR looked at it and there was a touch and they didn’t call it back. But that is not a VAR image and the resolution is not so good,” he argued.

Nevertheless, he believes that once the ball touched the player’s hand, the goal should not have stood.

“The opinion is based on law. Any touch (on the hand) that results in a goal must be disallowed. Any touch on the hand, it should be disallowed.

“It’s hard to tell, but if it touches his hand any at all, the goal should be disallowed. I don’t know if the VAR would see it and leave it alone, but the image is inconclusive,” he added.

livingston.scott@gleanerjm.com