Video: Did arbitration deprive Egypt of a historic victory over Argentina, and what did Aboutrika say? | sports

The excitement in the historic Atalanta confrontation between Argentina and Egypt was not limited to the five goals and the fatal “remontada” for the defending champion, but rather extended to include pivotal arbitration decisions that sparked widespread controversy in the Egyptian and international sports streets, and opened the door to questions about the extent of the arbitration’s fairness and the integrity of the application of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) technology.

The discussion here focuses on two decisive cases that completely changed the course of the match. The first was canceling Mustafa Zico’s goal in the 58th minute, and the second was awarding Argentina’s winning goal despite a violation against Mohamed Salah before the goal that the referee did not pay attention to or review, as he did in Zico’s goal.

We discuss the detailed arbitration analysis of the two cases in accordance with the Law of the Game issued by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) as follows:

Zico’s goal was disallowed after VAR intervention.

Zico scored a goal after a wonderful attack led by Haitham Hassan and an even more amazing pass by Mohamed Salah in the 58th minute, but the referee canceled the goal after referring to the video technology due to a violation on Marwan Attia. The truth is that the case at first glance is a normal challenge that does not amount to a violation, but replays showed that Attia ran over the foot of the Argentine player, and indeed deserved a violation.

Argentina’s winning goal, ignoring a clear violation against Salah

Enzo Fernandez scored the fatal winning goal for Argentina in the 90th minute Hamdi Fathi, an Argentine defender, also entered the penalty area.

The truth is that there was a clear obstruction from Julián Alvarez with his right foot to Salah’s left foot, which caused the latter to fall to the ground, and the ball bounced in the attack that ended with the fatal winning goal.

Here, the greatest responsibility lies with the arena referee, but the video technology referee had to draw the referee’s attention to the violation, and if he was not convinced, he must be summoned to watch the situation on the screen.

The referee’s ignoring of the violation, or even reviewing it on video, angered the Egyptian and Arab fans, who felt bitterness, as the scene appeared as if there was a “double standard” as Egypt’s goal was inspected with a magnifying glass to cancel it, while Argentina’s goal was passed despite a clear violation.

Abu Trika confirms that there is a violation against Salah

Former Egyptian star Mohamed Aboutrika confirmed that Argentina’s third goal was incorrect and said during the match analysis on beIN Sports that Salah was subjected to a clear violation.

This was also confirmed by former Argentine star Claudio Lopez in the studio, saying, “The referee should have returned to video technology, and Salah deserved a violation.”