@helenwritess: for legal reasons this is a joke #egypt #argentina #worldcup2026 #match

Lalala Snake :

Fan opinions not confirmed evidence

🌌bebo✨🌸 :

The ref genuinely forgot it’s Argentina jersey at home wtf was that

Teddy rants🧸🫶 :

Tzipporahh :

Egypt are my winners 🥰

marooma 🎀 :

Why I can’t put it on my story mate

C :

Is you forget ?????

🎧moody :

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.

🌸 :

@🌸:it was all managed because hossam hassan raised the Palestinian flag and messi is pro Isreal and Argentina got no cards the whole match then scored 3 goals at 10 minutes???

Rebecca Saad :

they crack me up

Lana Ali :

Yes you're right

haloshi.16 :

Please do

bckyyysn :

owen :

Give it a rest 😂😂😂

୨ৎ :

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.