2breeZ
Region: US
Tuesday 07 July 2026 18:15:16 GMT
64398
12472
1146
1275
Music
Download
Comments
haisevjakob :
Please share this : For those claiming the referee helped out—read this: 1. Valid VAR intervention: The incident was part of the ongoing build-up play that led directly to the goal. Under the rules, VAR is entitled to review that phase. 2. It was a foul: The player stepped on Lisandro while he was in possession of the ball. This stamp prevented him from taking a running stride, thereby impeding play. Incident 2: No penalty was awarded because: 1. Mo Salah had already lost possession: It was no longer considered an active attacking phase. 2. Alvarez's leg was stationary: It was Mo Salah who initiated contact by moving his leg toward Alvarez. This type of contact is usually only penalized if the moving player is the attacker, but as noted in point 1, Salah had already lost the ball. From another perspective, Salah was actually impeding Alvarez. 3. The contact was minimal: The touch was too slight to be considered a foul.
2026-07-08 14:16:50
9
Ryu :
ALL OF US KNOW THAT EGY IS THE REAL WINNER!
2026-07-08 10:37:42
67
peterluis :
fifa vs egypt
2026-07-08 07:02:36
108
🇪🇬 :
in my opinion, Egypt should have won the match. First, Egypt’s second goal should never have been disallowed. The referee let play continue, then VAR went back about 21 seconds to find a foul that happened far away from the goal. Egypt completed several passes after that, so I don’t think it should have been considered part of the same attacking move. If that goal had stood, Egypt would have been 2–0 up. Second, Mohamed Salah appeared to be fouled in the penalty area before Argentina’s winning goal. The referee didn’t award a penalty and VAR didn’t send him to the monitor. If Egypt had received that penalty, they could have scored, and Argentina’s winning attack would never have happened. Third, Hamdi Fathy also had a penalty appeal that I believe deserved at least a VAR review. Instead, play continued immediately, even though VAR had already shown it was willing to review incidents much earlier in Egypt’s attacking move. The biggest issue for me is the inconsistency. VAR went back over 20 seconds to cancel Egypt’s goal, but it didn’t intervene in the same way when Egypt had penalty appeals. To me, that felt like the standard changed depending on which decision benefited. I also think the repeated yellow cards shown to Egyptian players and staff for protesting reflected how frustrated they were with the officiating throughout the match. When I put all of those moments together, I feel Egypt were denied crucial decisions that could have changed the result. If Egypt’s second goal had counted and at least one of the penalty appeals had been given, I believe Egypt would have won the match instead of losing 3–2. That’s why, in my opinion, Egypt deserved to go through.
2026-07-08 09:06:08
11
فريدة :
All I gotta say
2026-07-08 05:58:41
17
Mina 🇨🇻🇪🇬 :
its js you gng
2026-07-08 05:43:00
38
✝️ROBIカ✝️ :
who's we it should have been 2.0 not 2.3 he literally winked at the refs
2026-07-08 07:32:06
5
Syed_meme :
Ronaldo fans after messi win
2026-07-08 16:43:57
4
Samarrai :
I don’t react to cheating
2026-07-08 09:42:25
12
Rahman :
Incident 1: Disallowing the goal was the correct decision because: 1. VAR intervention was valid: The incident was part of the continuous build-up play leading directly to the goal. According to the rules, VAR has the right to review the phase. 2. It was a foul: The player stamped on Lisandro while he was in possession of the ball. This stamping prevented him from taking a step to run, which constitutes an obstruction of play. Incident 2: No penalty was awarded because: 1. Mo Salah had already lost possession: It was no longer considered an active attacking phase. 2. Alvarez's leg was stationary: It was Mo Salah who initiated the contact by moving his leg into Alvarez. This type of contact is usually only penalized if the moving player is on the attack, but as stated in point 1, Salah had already lost the ball. From another perspective, Salah actually obstructed Alvarez. 3. The contact was extremely minimal: The touch was too light to be considered a foul.
2026-07-08 05:40:28
44
skoolip :
Guys! Disallowing the goal was the correct decision because: 1. VAR intervention was valid: The incident was part of the continuous build-up play leading directly to the goal. According to the rules, VAR has the right to review the phase. 2. It was a foul: The player stamped on Lisandro while he was in possession of the ball. This stamping prevented him from taking a step to run, which constitutes an obstruction of play. Incident 2: No penalty was awarded because: 1. Mo Salah had already lost possession: It was no longer considered an active attacking phase. 2. Alvarez's leg was stationary: It was Mo Salah who initiated the contact by moving his leg into Alvarez. This type of contact is usually only penalized if the moving player is on the attack, but as stated in point 1, Salah had already lost the ball. From another perspective, Salah actually obstructed Alvarez. 3. The contact was extremely minimal: The touch was too light to be considered a foul.
2026-07-08 06:20:07
17
To see more videos from user @2breez0, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
