Man, let me tell you, when I decided to dig into this whole Argentina penalty thing from the 2022 World Cup, it wasn’t because I was sitting around with nothing to do. It was the total opposite. The whole thing drove me absolutely nuts, and the only reason I had the time to dive deep was because my entire life was an absolute mess right then.
I remember watching the group stage, then the knockout games. Every time, it felt like Argentina got a little help. Was it luck? Was it bias? My feed was full of people screaming about “A-rgentina Ref-erees,” but I’m a guy who has to see the data, the process, the truth behind the noise. I figured if I could figure out why these specific calls were made, maybe I could fix something else in my life that felt rigged.
The Setup: Why I Even Bothered to Study Fouls
Most of you know I run this little side hustle doing data visualization for corporate clients. Right around the time the quarter-finals hit, I was neck-deep in a contract with this massive, pain-in-the-butt energy company. I’d spent three months building them this beautiful, complex dashboard, only for their new executive to jump in and demand I completely rewrite the backend using some outdated, proprietary system he “preferred.”
I mean, seriously. Three months of work, trashed because one guy decided his personal preference trumps efficiency. I pushed back, I tried to explain the technical debt it would create. They just stopped paying me. They ghosted my calls, they locked my access, and suddenly, I was sitting there, fully stressed, with a stack of overdue bills and a laptop full of code that was now useless. I felt cheated, absolutely robbed.
That exact feeling of being cheated, of the rules suddenly changing, is what linked me to those controversial penalty calls. I needed to prove that something in the universe was still based on logic, even if my professional life wasn’t. So, I shoved my laptop aside and said, “Fine. I’m going to spend my stolen work hours figuring out why Messi keeps walking up to the spot.”
The Practice: Frame by Frame and Rule Book in Hand
My first step? I acquired the raw footage of every Argentina game. Not just the highlights, but the full 90-minute broadcasts. I wasn’t going to trust a five-second clip from some random Twitter feed.
Then, I built a simple spreadsheet. Column A was the minute, Column B was the opponent, Column C was the specific player who was fouled (or appeared to be fouled), and Column D was the official reason given by the commentator/referee report (if available). I specifically logged every single Argentine penalty call, and crucially, I logged about five similar non-calls that happened to other teams in the tournament.
Here’s what my practical process looked like:
- I re-watched the foul incidents at 0.25x speed. I needed to see the precise moment of contact. Was the foot taken? Was the body clipped? Was it a trailing arm?
- I cross-referenced with the IFAB Laws of the Game. Specifically Law 12, “Fouls and Misconduct.” I focused on the difference between “careless,” “reckless,” and “excessive force.”
- I focused on the “Drawers.” I specifically tracked Ángel Di María and Julián Álvarez. Di María, man, he’s a master. I realized he wasn’t just falling; he was often initiating the contact after getting his body between the defender and the ball, an instant before the defender even committed. He was manipulating the momentum of the defender’s follow-through.
- I compared the foul angle. This was key. In almost every Argentina penalty, the foul was initiated from behind or to the side as the attacker was moving towards goal. The non-calls on other teams often involved players shielding the ball or moving away from goal, where the contact was judged less ‘goal-denying.’
The whole exercise took about three days of continuous, caffeine-fueled reviewing. My eyes were blurry, my head hurt, but I started seeing the patterns.
The Realization: It’s Not Rigged, It’s Strategic
The data, rough as it was, screamed the truth at me. It wasn’t simple bias. It was a combination of strategy and specific player skill exploited under the current interpretation of the rules.
First, the Attack: Argentina led the tournament in touches in the opponent’s box. They were simply there more often than almost anyone else, especially in high-leverage positions. More time in the box means more chances for a foul. It’s high-volume aggression.
Second, the Referees: I noticed a global trend: referees were instructed to err on the side of giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt, especially with VAR confirmation. “Light” contact that impedes movement when a clear goal-scoring opportunity is present is a penalty, even if it looks soft on replay.
Third, The “Di María Effect”: This was the biggest takeaway. Di María, Álvarez, and even Messi were experts at sensing the moment the defender lost control of their own body and using that slight opening to create an immediate collision that looked catastrophic. They weren’t just falling; they were creating the penalty situation through anticipation, a skill many other players just didn’t have to that level.
So, did Argentina get “lucky”? Sure, a little. But the real answer is that they mastered the current rules and had players who could consistently force the issue in the one place where contact is most punished. The game wasn’t rigged; their players were simply operating within the razor-thin margin of the rulebook better than everyone else.
And that’s the end of my deep dive. Funny enough, right after I finished this analysis, the energy company called me back, desperate for me to fix the mess they made trying to implement their outdated system. I told them thanks, but no thanks. My time is better spent chasing real truths, even if they’re just about soccer penalties, not chasing their ridiculous changes. Sometimes, figuring out why the referees made the right calls is more satisfying than any paycheck.