Egypt’s goal vs. Argentina controversially disallowed after VAR check

Egypt almost put Argentina on the ropes in the 58th minute of Tuesday’s World Cup round of 16 match until VAR intervened.

Midfielder Mostafa Zico’s breakaway goal that would have put Egypt 2-0 up was disallowed after a VAR check showed midfielder Marawan Attia had tripped Argentina defender Lisandro Martínez before the goal. However, the foul occurred while Argentina were on the attack, leading to some controversy over whether VAR exceeded its scope.

“It’s certainly not within VAR’s [realm] to go through this,” FOX Sports analyst Rob Green said on the broadcast. “That’s a full length of the field away.”

FOX Sports football referee expert Dr. Joe Machnik, meanwhile, believed the fact it was a foul meant the goal should have been disallowed.

“An error in the attacking phase of the game which leads to a goal or possession by the team [scores] a goal can result in the goal being disallowed and given a free kick,” explained Machnik.

Still, Green thought Argentina got away with one as he disagreed with the decision.

“What a break for Argentina. The whole length of the pitch,” Green continued. “That 100 yards away someone steps on someone’s toe is not why VAR was brought into the game. We have reached a point now where we have reached far beyond the powers that it should have. The referee saw the tackle, decided not to give it and Egypt, with a brilliant breakaway goal, have been denied a two-goal cushion.”

Argentina were unable to do anything with the ensuing free kick and Egypt were able to take a 2-0 lead when Ziko scored again in the 67th minute. However, Argentina scored in the 79th minute to reduce Egypt’s lead to 2–1, and Lionel Messi scored the equalizer in the 83rd minute. So the disallowed goal looms large.

‘This is not a decision for VAR’

FOX Sports’ other soccer rules analyst, former FIFA referee Mark Clattenburg, strongly disagreed with both the call and the VAR review.

“I don’t believe that A. it was a mistake and B. there should be a VAR intervention to disallow this goal,” Clattenburg told us after the game.

“This is not a decision for VAR,” he added.

He pointed to a lack of consistency in enforcement throughout this World Cup, with previous comparable incidents not receiving VAR’s second look.

“My view on it is simple: This challenge, this type of foul, is not consistent with the way the referees have judged this tournament,” Clattenburg said. “They’ve allowed some physical challenges. They’ve allowed some physical contact. And you can argue that this is not a foul. And certainly, this is not a VAR intervention when the referee has made the call on the pitch, and it’s such a very subjective decision whether it’s a foul or not. It’s not a clear foul.”

Clattenburg also shared the view of Green and others regarding the enormous distance and time between the foul and the disallowed goal.

“WERE [was] looking too deep into something and looking for something that happened in the match to try and cancel out Egypt’s goal,” Clattenburg continued.

“This one had a lot of passes and a long distance to the goal and a long time. It’s not like one or two seconds. It must have been, what, 10 seconds from the foul to the goal being scored, so that’s too long as well.”

Because of both the questionable contact and being about three-quarters of the way from the goal, the play should have been flagged, especially because Argentina had time to reset, he said.

“If we look at Argentina,” Clattenburg added, “they’ve had some decisions that have definitely benefited and this is one that has definitely benefited Argentina because this was a disallowed goal. And certainly a lot of people around the world will see this as unfair VAR intervention.”

‘It meets the protocol’

After the game, Machnik elaborated on the call to “WC NOW” that the process used to take the goal off the scoreboard and call the foul was correct.

“It’s long been part of the VAR protocol, this was one of the earliest things they decided they didn’t want a foul that led to the scoring of a goal to allow that goal to be awarded,” Machnik said. “Now, they never said there was a distance, that the foul had to be five seconds before or 75 yards away. As long as one team didn’t regain possession or make a play, that possession was purely gained from the foul, and that foul led to the possession that led to the goal.

“It meets the protocol and that’s why it was rejected.”

While the on-field referee likely saw the tackle and chose to let play continue, Machnik pointed out that doesn’t mean the on-field decision will always stand.

“Managing at this level is a matter of angles,” Machnik said. “So, the angle the referee may have had, that foul happened in a corner of the pitch. He’s a good distance away. He might not have had an angle on it. The assistant referee on that side of the pitch is way up at the other end.

“So what VAR is saying is, ‘let me show you another angle’. And when you see that different angle, there’s a mistake, he stepped on his foot.”

Machnik acknowledged that VAR took away a moment of magic for Egypt and that the end result will not always be a decision people are happy with.

“We don’t like it,” Machnik said. “Most of the time that’s how I feel about what VAR has done to the game. About 75% of the time it takes away something that’s fun. The other 25% of the time it presents us with something that’s ugly and painful.”

How Egypt reacted to a goal disallowed by VAR

Egypt coach Hossam Hassan made it clear that he disagreed with the VAR check that led to the disallowed goal for Zico.

“I’m not convinced about this result. I’m not convinced about the way things unfolded during this game,” Hassan said, via the Associated Press. “I’m not going to try to put it nicely here with beautiful wording, selected wording, and say good luck and so on and so forth.

“We have been treated unfairly today. We have suffered injustice.”

WHAT YOU SHOULD READ NEXT

Argentina pulled off an incredible comeback on Tuesday afternoon.