Lenny8e
Region: US
Tuesday 07 July 2026 20:04:42 GMT
114633
11150
1023
3600
Music
Download
Comments
1dleãdö :
"Fifa vs Egypt"
2026-07-08 05:06:51
598
Floyd Leech’s cute butt :
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 06:07:42
13
Ahmad :
notice how Salah didn't even argue w ref he knew it wasn't foul
2026-07-08 05:25:24
147
toske👻🇷🇸✨️ :
FINALY SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS FUTBALL
2026-07-08 05:37:32
333
budman397 :
Do you all realize that after Egypt second goal a player took off his shirt but didn't get a yellow? 🤔
2026-07-08 03:59:23
308
:
Now this guy knows ball
2026-07-08 00:38:19
122
M. :
how much fifa payed u to say this
2026-07-07 23:54:53
48
𝑀𝒽𝓂𝒹 🛸✨ :
Nice mma 😂 and lets not forget the pen for salah when vargantina scored the third. Unbelievable
2026-07-08 00:54:16
6
6dots :
Nope, not fair play. If he commited foul immedietly after touching the ball, then yes. The ball went away from him and only THEN did he commit foul. It was a clear as day penalty.
2026-07-08 00:03:49
6
Sajed Misraty :
I'm Messi fan and I will say it's low-key rigged
2026-07-08 00:35:06
5
Mahfuj Ahmed Rahul :
Ronaldo fans:
2026-07-08 06:15:38
33
Bavley 🥏 :
Sound pollution
2026-07-08 05:21:35
5
🇦🇷TRF🇦🇷 :
thnks for explaining to Messi hater
2026-07-08 05:33:00
22
★彡 𝓐𝓾𝓫𝓻𝓮𝔂 彡★ :
explain this then.
2026-07-08 05:46:37
6
𝚈𝚜𝚏👍 :
explain
2026-07-07 23:30:32
170
Jesse :
Explain this pls
2026-07-07 23:22:56
64
AFS :
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 04:29:17
48
Mohannad :
Messi fan but it was penalty
2026-07-07 23:50:24
7
Jali :
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 03:31:53
100
To see more videos from user @lenny8e, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
