Darwin, 08 July : After Egypt’s 3–2 defeat to Argentina in the FIFA World Cup Round of 16, the Egyptian team strongly criticized two refereeing and VAR decisions.

Head coach Hossam Hassan argued that Mostafa Ziko’s goal in the 62nd minute was unfairly disallowed, while Argentina’s winning goal should also have been ruled out because it was preceded by a foul.

Hassan even suggested that Egypt had been treated unfairly to ensure Argentina and Lionel Messi remained in the tournament. Forward Ziko described the referee as “tyrannical.”

Sports outlet ESPN analyzed the controversial decisions from the Argentina–Egypt match. Former Select Group referee and VAR official Andy Davies explained why Egypt’s goal was disallowed and why Argentina’s goal was allowed to stand, offering his interpretation of the incidents.

Below is a translation of Davies’ analysis.

Why Was Egypt’s Goal Disallowed?

What happened?

In the 62nd minute, Egypt forward Mostafa Ziko appeared to score one of the finest goals of the tournament, giving Egypt a 2–0 lead.

However, following a VAR intervention, the goal was disallowed because, during the build-up, Egypt defender Marwan Attia had fouled Argentina’s Lisandro Martínez.

VAR decision

VAR determined that a foul had occurred before the goal and advised the referee to review the incident on the pitch-side monitor.

After reviewing the footage, the referee disallowed the goal.

VAR review

According to VAR, Attia simultaneously pulled Martínez’s shirt and stepped on his foot. Both actions were considered fouls.

After watching the replay, French referee François Letexier agreed with VAR and ruled the goal out.

Andy Davies’ verdict

The VAR intervention was correct, and the decision to disallow the goal was also correct.

Attia’s clear foul denied Argentina the opportunity to continue their attack, and Egypt scored directly from the resulting sequence of play. Under the Laws of the Game, a goal scored as a direct consequence of such a foul must be disallowed.

Although the foul occurred well outside the penalty area and deep inside Egypt’s own half, that does not matter. If a goal is scored in the same attacking phase that directly follows a foul, the goal must be ruled out.

Once the referee was shown both the shirt pull and the stamp on Martínez’s foot, there was no realistic basis for allowing the goal to stand.

Why Wasn’t a Foul Given Before Argentina’s Third Goal?

Late in the match, Egypt appealed for fouls in two separate incidents, one of which occurred before Enzo Fernández scored in stoppage time. Both incidents took place inside Argentina’s penalty area.

What happened?

In the first incident, Argentina’s Alexis Mac Allister was seen pulling the shirt of Egypt’s Hamdi Fathi, who then fell to the ground. The referee allowed play to continue.

In the second incident, shortly before the final whistle, Mohamed Salah claimed that Julián Álvarez had fouled him as he entered Argentina’s penalty area. The referee decided that the contact did not amount to a foul.

VAR decision

VAR reviewed both incidents and upheld the referee’s decisions. No penalty was awarded.

VAR review

The match presented a particularly difficult challenge for the VAR team, especially regarding the Mac Allister incident.

It created an unusual “double-impact” situation: overturning the referee’s decision could have led not only to Argentina’s goal being disallowed but also to Egypt being awarded a penalty moments earlier, since both incidents occurred within the same attacking phase.

After reviewing the actions of Mac Allister and Álvarez, VAR concluded that neither incident involved a clear and obvious error warranting intervention.

As a result, both on-field decisions were allowed to stand.

Andy Davies’ verdict

The closing stages of the match were difficult for both the referee and VAR, but in my view, they reached the correct decisions in both cases.

Mac Allister took a risk by briefly pulling Fathi’s shirt, but the contact lasted only a moment and did not materially affect Fathi’s ability to play the ball or participate in the attack. Therefore, it did not rise to the level of a penalty.

Likewise, the decision not to award Salah a penalty was correct.

In that incident, Salah appeared to be trying more to win a penalty than reacting to an actual foul. There was no clear foul by Álvarez. The players’ boots made contact naturally as a result of both players’ movement, and Salah went to ground unnecessarily.

Why Were the Two Fouls Judged Differently?

Some people may compare the incident involving Salah with the foul committed by Attia before Egypt’s disallowed goal, but there is an important distinction.

In the first incident, a defender clearly stepped on his opponent’s foot, constituting a clear foul.

In Salah’s case, however, the contact between the players’ boots resulted naturally from their movement and was not considered a foul.

For that reason, the two incidents are fundamentally different and warranted different decisions.