@_userviolett: Egypt vs Argentina match is not fair #foryou #fifa #2026 #worldcup #viral robbed and racism

mirko :

BROO JUST CRY PENALDO FANS CRYING BECAUSE PENALDO IS AT THE AIRPORT BUT MESSI IS PLAYING THE WORLD CUP AHAHAHAHHAHA PENALDO FANS PENALDO FIFA PENALDO UEFA PENALDO PENALTY PORTUGAL ROBBERY AHAHAHAHHAHAH

Menna Mohamed :

It’s really unfair 💔🇪🇬

Mohamed Tarek :

✨lucí 🇦🇷 :

Argentina ganó 3-2 remontando un 0-2 en contra. El gol anulado a Egipto fue por falta de Attia sobre Lisandro Martínez revisada por VAR, que existe precisamente para corregir errores. El árbitro Letexier es francés, de élite UEFA, con final de Europa League y Eurocopa 2024 en su historial. Si la FIFA lo eligiera para favorecer a Argentina, no elegiría a alguien de un país que compite por el mismo Mundial. Egipto reclamó el penal sobre Salah que es discutible, pero Argentina también erró un penal con Messi y estuvo 0-2 abajo. No fue robo, fue una remontada épica con decisiones arbitrales que siempre generan debate.

hi :

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.

ghoul :

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.

Mirna :

𝓿𝓱𝓶𝓮𝓭💫 :

It's not fair at all, why am I crying now?

LUXURY$ :

~★Heyitsmeh★~ :

dude can i make video like this i got inspire😁

Egyptian&proud🇪🇬❤️ :

I think the first one cause after the pass was with him so it was a advantage but i agree the player should’ve got a red card

㋖🎸✮丰ŤØĶÏØ HØȚËŁ丰✮🎸㋖ :

it's really unfair😢😢💔💔

larpson :

Rematch rn