@theoldzealand: RIP Pyramids

el ఇ ◝‿◜ ఇ 🇦🇷 ¹⁷ :

anyone who says the goal shouldn't be disallowed "because it happened earlier" doesn't watch football

b3njamin312 :

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.

𝕬𝖗𝖈𝖍𝖆𝖓𝖌𝖊𝖑ᴾᴿᴵᴹᴱ :

am Egyptian btw

schiapu :

You think the 3rd goal should have been called back?

Ahí Vamos Blog de Viajes :

This script is incomplete

kj :

no way am first

Vindo :

I LOVE your content

Ff :

was ist das für ein kombi :

leo :

Gage (the goat) :

does the goat reply

OBUJI PAUL🥷🏿 :

😂😂😂

ORLANDO :

😂😂😂

Mar1anope :

un poquito dolido el ingles