VAR review: Were Egypt unfairly denied a pivotal g...

World Cup VAR review: Were Egypt unfairly denied a pivotal goal vs. Argentina?24mAndy DaviesPay-to-play youth soccer explains America's World Cup losses3hDan WetzelGrades for every team eliminated from the World Cup: USMNT gets a C1dRyan O'HanlonNeymar was Ancelotti's gamble at the World Cup, and it failed14hTim VickeryTransfer rumors, news: World Cup hero Vozinha could join Messi at Inter Miami12mESPNMen's transfer grades: Tottenham get C- for $125m Tonali deal1dSam TigheUSMNT will look back at 2026 World Cup as a missed opportunity10hSam BordenSo, Ronaldo's World Cup era is over.

Where did each tournament go wrong, and why?5hBill ConnellyLondon City are set to sign 'Queen' Putellas. Is that a good thing?

14hEmily KeoghplayGomez: Messi is the reason Argentina are still in the World Cup (2:10)Andy DaviesMultiple AuthorsJul 7, 2026, 04:32 PM ETEmailPrintOpen Extended ReactionsThe video assistant referee causes controversy every week, whether it be the Premier League, Champions League or FA Cup, but now we have a 104-game FIFA men's World Cup to cover, so how are the decisions made this summer and are they correct?For the tournament, we are taking a look at the major incidents to examine and explain the process in terms of both VAR protocol and the laws of the game. Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, with over 12 seasons on the elite list, working across the Premier League and Championship.

With extensive experience at the elite level, he has operated within the VAR space in the Premier League and offers a unique insight into the processes, rationale and protocols that are delivered on a World Cup matchday. July 7Argentina vs. EgyptReferee: François Letexier VAR: Jerome Brisard Time: 62 minutes Incident: Egypt goal disallowed from a VAR overturn.

What happened: Egypt attacker Mostafa Ziko thought he had scored an incredible World Cup goal to put his team up 2-0 against Argentina. However, following a VAR intervention, the goal was disallowed for a foul in the buildup by Egypt defender Marwan Attia on Argentina player Lisandro Martínez.After VAR review, Egypt's goal is disallowed due to a foul in the offensive build up pic.

twitter.com/WB7WgVGpQL— FOX Sports (@FOXSports) July 7, 2026 VAR decision: The VAR overturned the goal because of the foul in the buildup.VAR review: The VAR was quick in recommending an on-field review for a possible foul by Attia prior to the goal being scored.

The VAR was uncomfortable with the action by the Egyptian's actions, as he both held on to Martinez's shirt and stood on the Argentine's foot simultaneously. Once at the screen, the French referee agreed with the VAR judgement and disallowed the goal.Verdict: A correct intervention by the VAR, and disallowing this goal was the right outcome.

The clear foul by Egypt's Attia had a direct impact on their ability to break away and score, leaving Argentina disadvantaged while in an attacking position.The incident occurred high up the pitch and might cause some debate. However, when a foul of this nature occurs in the same phase and directly results in a goal, it must be disallowed.

Once the referee is shown the pictures of simultaneous shirt-hold and step on the foot, there was no chance he would stick with his original decision.Incidents: Egypt appealed for two separate fouls late in this match, with one occurring in the leadup to Argentina scoring in the second minute of second-half stoppage time. Both occurred in the Argentina penalty area.

What happened: Argentina's Alexis Mac Allister appeared to grab Egypt's Hamdy Fathy in the penalty area, with the Egyptian falling to the ground following the contact. However, no decision was given by the referee.Additionally, in the closing mins of the match, Egypt's Mohamed Salah claimed he had been tripped by Argentina's Julián Álvarez as Salah attacked the Argentine penalty box.

Once again, the referee did not feel the action by the defender met the threshold for foul contact.VAR decision: The VAR checked and cleared both decisions as correct on-field decisions.VAR review: This was a challenging match for the VAR, with the initial Mac Allister incident, considering where it occurred on the pitch, precenting a unique situation of a double-consequence outcome -- any positive intervention would result in a review for both the Argentina goal to be potentially disallowed, and then a penalty to be awarded at the opposite end of the pitch as it occurred in the same phase of play.

The VAR was comfortable that neither met the threshold for an intervention given the relative actions of the defending Argentina players, checking and clearing both non-calls.Verdict: In a difficult end to the match for both the referee and VAR, I am comfortable they were correct in both situations.Mac Allister took a big risk when he grabbed Fathy's shirt off the ball.

However, it was minimal, not sustained and did not have a material impact given on the attacker's ability to gain possession of the ba