@namemadethat: Argentina Comeback Vs Egypt 3-2 🤩🔥 // NO COPYRIGHT ⚠️ // #fyp #argentina #egypt #creatorsearchinsights #capcut // @alice

𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔞𝔩𝔳𝔬𝔮𝔫 🌪️🐉 :

robbery btw✌🏾

skelly💫 :

robbery

etaham123 :

Ref comeback against Egypt

ahmed69420 :

robbery🥀

Zyko :

Hi 😂😂😂

𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐤_𝟐𝟓 :

W 🔥🔥

chameseddin :

wwww😍🔥

gygyika :

亗 𝕱𝖗𝖆𝖓𝖈𝖍𝖊𝖘𝖈𝖔 亗 :

For those who think it was robbed 🥀🥀🥀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.