mbappe_expert
Region: DK
Tuesday 07 July 2026 19:43:02 GMT
120070
18056
238
10446
Music
Download
Comments
Kyrieonn :
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.
2026-07-07 23:33:45
26
Evil Mastantuono :
never been more obvious
2026-07-07 20:02:40
385
:
And NO it doesn’t matter that the defender touched the ball first. It should’ve been a penalty and they should’ve disallowed Argentina’s goal
2026-07-07 20:59:29
43
zan :
they know
2026-07-08 01:25:02
17
Mijat :
egipt player didnt shoot the ball argentina player did thats why i said to u dont watch football from instagram reels
2026-07-07 22:42:27
24
️ :
not even tryna hide it
2026-07-08 00:37:56
9
PaashaasSchaamhaarVerzamelaar :
one hit the ball the other didnt, learn football
2026-07-07 19:46:32
7
To see more videos from user @mbappe_expert, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
