Among them is an Argentine. Experts and analysts question the French government’s decisions against Egypt sports

Some refereeing decisions in the match between Egypt and Argentina in the quarter-finals of the 2026 World Cup sparked controversy, especially the cancellation of a goal scored by Mostafa Zico at the beginning of the second half.

The Argentine national team overturned a two-goal deficit to a thrilling 3-2 victory over its Egyptian counterpart in the match that was held on Tuesday at Atlanta Stadium, continuing the campaign to defend the title it won in the Qatar edition in 2022.

Mostafa Zico scored a goal for the Egyptian national team in the 58th minute to increase the lead of the “Pharaohs”, but the French referee, François Leutixier, canceled it after returning to video technology (VAR) due to Marwan Attia committing a mistake against Argentine defender Lisandro Martinez at the beginning of the attack.

Wrong decision

The former Spanish referee and arbitration analyst on Radio Marca, Eduardo Burol, believes that referee Leutixier’s decision to cancel the Egyptian national team’s second goal was wrong, considering that the violation awarded to defender Martinez did not affect the course of the attack.

Burul said: “Going back to the beginning of the attack to cancel the goal was not justified. Such violations do not have a sufficient impact on scoring the goal.”

He added: “The Egyptian player ran the ball a long distance, so returning to a long shot and issuing a violation for stepping on a back’s foot only with a slow replay is not compatible with the nature of the game.”

The former referee questioned the validity of the video technology intervention, stressing that the shot did not rise to the level of a “clear and clear error” that required the intervention of the video assistant referee.

He continued: “If the referee had called the violation directly on the field, the decision would have been acceptable, but after he allowed play to continue, I do not see any justification to go back and cancel the goal.”

Former Spanish referee Iturralde Gonzalez agreed with Burol, stressing that the violation was incorrect and was nothing more than a very minor step, and according to the philosophy of video technology (VAR) it did not deserve review, but should have remained within the arena referee’s discretion.

He added: “The biggest problem is that the laws of the game have always been unified all over the world, but since the introduction of video technology, its use has begun to vary from one tournament to another, without a unified standard, which confuses players and fans due to the difference in the mechanism of its application between competitions.”

Foul before Fernandes’ goal

The winning goal for Argentina, scored by Enzo Fernandez in stoppage time, also raised some doubts, due to a foul being committed against Mohamed Salah before the ball reached Lautaro Martinez, who provided the assist for Enzo.

Former Argentine national team star Claudio Lopez said: “Salah was obstructed and the referee had to return to the video technology to check the shot.”

He added in his analysis of the match on the beIN Sports network: “The ball was behind Salah, and Martinez, who blocked him, had the ball in front of him. The referee should have returned to video technology.”

Criticism of the England myth

In turn, English football legend Ian Wright considered that Fernandes’ goal should have been disallowed, due to a violation against Mohamed Salah at the beginning of the attack.

Wright said, during his analysis of the match on ITV Sport: “This is what is happening now with video technology, as it re-reviews previous footage. If you are going to return to canceling Argentina’s goal because of a violation on the edge of the penalty area, you must also return to this footage of Mohamed Salah.”

He added, “He was exposed to contact, and it may have been minor, but he was fouled, and then the attack went in the other direction.”