NLAKIYA⚽️✨️💎
Region: GH
Tuesday 07 July 2026 20:48:19 GMT
661882
13310
449
3044
Music
Download
Comments
Global.elly38🌍 :
I'm a Messi fan but to be honest, Ronaldo is far better than ishowspeed
2026-07-08 06:37:37
182
Asma lithi :
Egypt was leading 2-0 until the 78th minute. The referee was good, VAR was good, FIFA was good too! But in the 79th minute Argentina scored, then made a great comeback and won the match….wow! Suddenly the referee was bad, VAR was bad
2026-07-08 07:10:05
99
sadtimes :
that was not the real foul.after that when lisandro martinez was running u can see clearly that Zico grabbed lisandro's shirt so it was foul. so right decision. the second foul is not foul because alvarez touched the ball and the he was changing direction so it could take action to the ball it was just a light touch so unfortunately it was not a foul
2026-07-08 08:33:36
0
伊德里斯 :
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 07:54:08
18
Ç𝓱ě𝓷𝓰 𝓑ǎ :
You said you will stop watching football when Ronaldo is eliminated, what are u doing here? 🤣
2026-07-08 04:40:34
53
Wilker :
Ronaldo fans
2026-07-08 06:32:47
17
sasindu sudeshke :
yes my guy that's fair decision from referring no one got robbed
2026-07-07 21:14:58
48
imara_dj :
Which player had the last touch of the ball Sallah or Alvarez?
2026-07-07 23:39:40
28
Hassan Bin Yusoff (TGTSG) :
Egypt lost against FIFA not Argentina
2026-07-08 04:22:43
6
vii_ :
itu off the ball, salah udah kalah bola dan jatuhkan diri ke arah yang berlawanan, baca lagi rulesnya. jatohnya diving itu kocak
2026-07-08 03:44:20
14
ISHOLA😜🥰🥰🇺🇸💰 :
Argentina won 3–2, but I still feel the match wasn’t officiated fairly. Egypt played with heart and gave everything. In my opinion, there were some big decisions that went against Egypt, including the disallowed goal and penalty appeals. I predicted Egypt would win, and I’m still proud of how they played. Football is full of opinions, and this is mine. Portugal also fought with heart against Spain, and Cristiano Ronaldo will always be my GOAT. SIUUUU! 🐐❤️🇵🇹⚽ #CristianoRonaldo #CR7 #Portugal #Egypt #Argentina #Football #VAR #Respect #GOAT #SIUUUU
2026-07-08 08:31:37
0
alittlestoryhere :
dari Messi kita belajar, kalo sukses butuh orang dalam😂
2026-07-08 03:11:31
16
Thapelo :
Thank you
2026-07-08 08:23:55
0
Muhammad Sarif Miya :
it's foul bro
2026-07-08 08:23:57
0
matavire.e :
Thats misinformation
2026-07-08 08:06:14
0
medivin1 :
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 07:34:37
5
ARN :
it was clearly not even a foul.🖤
2026-07-08 07:01:38
5
z :
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 07:26:00
5
Apple User94922582 :
Was not a penalty anyway 3 goals in 15min
2026-07-08 02:50:43
10
RC Rayamajhi :
completly unfair match
2026-07-08 07:04:40
6
To see more videos from user @nlakiya, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
