Egypt’s goal against Argentina controversially annulled after VAR control

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

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

“Surely this is not within the scope of VAR. [realm] “This needs to be reviewed,” FOX Sports analyst Rob Green said on the broadcast. “It’s a full distance from the field.”

Meanwhile, FOX Sports soccer refereeing expert Dr. Joe Machnik thought the fact that it was a foul meant the goal should have been disallowed.

“A foul in the attacking phase of play, leading to a goal or possession by the team that [scores] a goal may lead to the goal being disallowed and a free kick being awarded,” Machnik explained.

Still, Green thought Argentina got its way because he didn’t agree with the decision.

“What a relief for Argentina. All along the length of the field,” Green continued. “That, 100 meters away, someone steps on someone’s toe is not the reason why VAR was introduced into the game. We have reached a point where we have gone far beyond the powers it should have. The referee saw the tackle, decided not to allow it and Egypt, with a brilliant breakaway goal, have been denied a two-goal cushion.”

Argentina could do nothing with the ensuing free kick, and Egypt was 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 VAR decision”

FOX Sports’ other soccer rules analyst, former FIFA referee Mark Clattenburg, disagreed with either the decision or the VAR review.

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

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

He pointed to a lack of consistency in the application of the law throughout this World Cup, with previous comparable incidents failing to gain second VAR review.

“My opinion is simple: this challenge, this type of foul, is not consistent with the way the referees have been officiating this tournament,” Clattenburg said. “They have allowed some physical challenges. They have 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 decision on the field of play, and it is a very subjective decision whether it is a foul or not. It is not a clear foul.”

Clattenburg also shared the position of Green and others on the tremendous distance and time between the foul and the disallowed goal.

“var [was] to look too deeply into something and look for something that happened in the game to try to nullify Egypt’s goal,” Clattenburg continued.

“This one had a lot of passes and a lot of distance to the goal and a lot of time. It wasn’t like one or two seconds. It must have been, what, 10 seconds from the foul to the goal, so it’s too long too.”

Due to both the questionable contact and being approximately three-quarters of the way from the goal, the play should have been called, especially since Argentina had time to reset, he said.

“If you look at Argentina,” Clattenburg added, “they have made some decisions that have certainly benefited them, and this one has certainly benefited Argentina because it was a disallowed goal. And certainly a lot of people around the world will see this as an unfair VAR intervention.”

‘Complies with the protocol’

After the match, Machnik explained in the “World Cup NOW” call that the process used to remove the goal from the scoreboard and call the foul was correct.

“It’s been part of the VAR protocol for a long time, this was one of the first things they decided, that they didn’t want a foul leading to a goal to allow that goal to be awarded,” Machnik said. “Now, they never said there was a gap, that the foul was going to be five seconds early or 75 yards away. As long as a team didn’t regain possession or make a play, that possession was won cleanly from the foul and that foul led to the possession that led to the goal.

“He complies with the protocol and that is why he was disallowed.”

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

“Officiating at this level is a matter of angles,” Machnik said. “So the angle the referee may have had, that foul happened in one corner of the field. It’s quite far away. He may not have had an angle. The assistant referee on that side of the field is on the other end.

“So what the VAR says is, ‘Let me show you a different angle.’ And when you see the different angle, there’s a foul, they stepped on his foot.”

Machnik acknowledged that VAR took away a magical moment from Egypt and that the final result will not always be a decision that 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 from us that is fun. The other 25% of the time, it presents us with something that is ugly and painful.”

How Egypt reacted to the goal disallowed by the VAR

The Egyptian coach, Hossam Hassan, made it clear that he did not agree with the VAR control that caused Zico’s goal to be disallowed.

“I’m not convinced with this result. I’m not convinced with the way things developed during this match,” Hassan said, via The Associated Press. “I don’t want to try to put it nicely here with beautiful wording, choice wording and saying bad luck and so on.

“Today we have been treated unfairly. We have suffered injustice.”

WHAT YOU SHOULD READ NEXT

Argentina completed an incredible comeback on Tuesday afternoon.