i don't think salah was trying to dive but he just lost his balance when he lost the ball
2026-07-07 21:00:59
0
user103745763 :
i’m a ronaldo fan, and i don’t think the refs helped argentina
2026-07-08 14:08:52
2
Escapism :
Man of the match
2026-07-07 20:24:49
35
● :
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 06:13:56
9
iamturtle :
@Mossaaz: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 00:49:23
2
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 05:10:48
6
amirfesk :
What’s more scripted WWE or FIFA
2026-07-07 20:10:30
34
manucastagna :
Best take I’ve seen so far
2026-07-07 21:57:53
4
68 :
Its all because Ronaldo lost
2026-07-08 02:58:17
12
Ishaque Nizamani :
What about austria vs Argentina first goal check the goal why was foul not given by var