I can’t confirm anything, since I am only going by what others are saying. I’ve read how the refs in other games (not Argentina’s since I haven’t read anything about their other games) are basically ignoring fouls and penalties to let things flow, regardless of who it benefits. I haven’t read how this match was consistent with how the same ref called his other matches, only that his calls this match were even and consistent between these two teams.
You could maybe point out that this match was reffed inconsistently with the rest of the tournament, since the ref did call fouls and penalties; but the consensus is that this match was how the rest of the tournament SHOULD have been called.
I would consider awarding penalties that aren’t penalties and disallowing valid goals is the very thing I’m complaining about. Hell, even the missing yellow card you mentioned could have been pivotal another night. You even calling that out makes it very clear you don’t think its consistent as i agree, its normally an instant yellow.
Letting the game flow but getting these big decisions wrong means the former is worth fuck all.
That link is one of the most bullshit, biased “analyses” I’ve ever read. It shows multiple pictures of the the Egyptian player 1) holding onto the arm, 2) stepping on the foot, 3) then grabbing the shirt and pulling to the ground the Argentinian attacker… and then he says it probably wasn’t a foul because they both had to put their feet somewhere?? He also said it shouldn’t count as the start of the attacking phase because the Argentinian players didn’t run hard enough to get back on defense?? That is not what the rules say. Nearly every other thing I’ve read about that exact play said the right call was made. Watching the video is even more clear this was a foul, since ignoring the foot stomp you can very clearly watch the Egyptian player drag the Argentinian player to the ground by his shirt.
This whole story is about Egyptians feeling like the ref was biased against them. If the ref didn’t give Egypt a yellow that they deserved then it kinda discounts the claims made in this video.
This ignores the main thrust of the article, which was, how far can VAR wind back the clock. They even gave examples of other games and other starting fouls/balls out of play. Nice job.
I disagree with you on what the main thrust was, but if that is the main thrust, then main thrust is also nonsense. The rule does not say “less than 17 seconds before the score.” It says from the beginning of the attacking phase of play. There are numerous examples of VAR going back 30 seconds or more to overturn a goal. It sucks for the fans of the attacking team, but that has been the rule for awhile now. And it has been applied much more egregiously than this one in past games.
I think thats the problem with your entire argument, its the “well thats the way it is”, or “it was worse in x game”, like thats any sort of valid excuse. It falls apart even quicker when you see it applied inconsistently. Sometimes they wind it back, sometimes they do not, you even say this.
Its hardly difficult to enforce an X number of touches since the last foul/out of play except where violent or otherwise dangerous play is involved, those are actually quite tightly defined, if not always enforced consistently. The current limitless rollback that we have for some instances is completely farcical.
The whole issue with VAR is its allowed to be inconsistent, its become a complete parody of what it was meant to be.
I can’t confirm anything, since I am only going by what others are saying. I’ve read how the refs in other games (not Argentina’s since I haven’t read anything about their other games) are basically ignoring fouls and penalties to let things flow, regardless of who it benefits. I haven’t read how this match was consistent with how the same ref called his other matches, only that his calls this match were even and consistent between these two teams.
You could maybe point out that this match was reffed inconsistently with the rest of the tournament, since the ref did call fouls and penalties; but the consensus is that this match was how the rest of the tournament SHOULD have been called.
Consistency isn’t consistency when “everywhere” isn’t calling it that way for the big decisions: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7430665/2026/07/08/egypt-argentina-world-cup-var-goal-ziko/?source=user_shared_article&unlocked_article_code=1.wFA.oB5U.dlT-PAMmQZCv
I would consider awarding penalties that aren’t penalties and disallowing valid goals is the very thing I’m complaining about. Hell, even the missing yellow card you mentioned could have been pivotal another night. You even calling that out makes it very clear you don’t think its consistent as i agree, its normally an instant yellow.
Letting the game flow but getting these big decisions wrong means the former is worth fuck all.
That link is one of the most bullshit, biased “analyses” I’ve ever read. It shows multiple pictures of the the Egyptian player 1) holding onto the arm, 2) stepping on the foot, 3) then grabbing the shirt and pulling to the ground the Argentinian attacker… and then he says it probably wasn’t a foul because they both had to put their feet somewhere?? He also said it shouldn’t count as the start of the attacking phase because the Argentinian players didn’t run hard enough to get back on defense?? That is not what the rules say. Nearly every other thing I’ve read about that exact play said the right call was made. Watching the video is even more clear this was a foul, since ignoring the foot stomp you can very clearly watch the Egyptian player drag the Argentinian player to the ground by his shirt.
This whole story is about Egyptians feeling like the ref was biased against them. If the ref didn’t give Egypt a yellow that they deserved then it kinda discounts the claims made in this video.
This ignores the main thrust of the article, which was, how far can VAR wind back the clock. They even gave examples of other games and other starting fouls/balls out of play. Nice job.
I disagree with you on what the main thrust was, but if that is the main thrust, then main thrust is also nonsense. The rule does not say “less than 17 seconds before the score.” It says from the beginning of the attacking phase of play. There are numerous examples of VAR going back 30 seconds or more to overturn a goal. It sucks for the fans of the attacking team, but that has been the rule for awhile now. And it has been applied much more egregiously than this one in past games.
I think thats the problem with your entire argument, its the “well thats the way it is”, or “it was worse in x game”, like thats any sort of valid excuse. It falls apart even quicker when you see it applied inconsistently. Sometimes they wind it back, sometimes they do not, you even say this.
Its hardly difficult to enforce an X number of touches since the last foul/out of play except where violent or otherwise dangerous play is involved, those are actually quite tightly defined, if not always enforced consistently. The current limitless rollback that we have for some instances is completely farcical.
The whole issue with VAR is its allowed to be inconsistent, its become a complete parody of what it was meant to be.