Ever since the Egypt vs Argentina match, all sorts of claims about unfair officiating have run rampant. Not only did Egypt’s players and coach bring it up in post-match interviews — the Egyptian FA lodged a formal protest too. A wave of “conspiracy theory” netizens flooded FIFA and spread all manner of claims online about the referee favoring Argentina, complete with screenshots vividly describing how Egypt was treated unfairly. But to avoid copyright issues, I won’t post the images here; if you’re curious, they’re easy to find online.
In All Honesty, the Whistle Did Lean Toward Argentina in This Match
But actually, having watched the whole game, in all honesty, the referee did lean somewhat toward Argentina. Several 50/50 calls went Argentina’s way, and I’d say there’s room to argue whether Argentina’s first penalty (though it was saved) even needed to be given. The referee also relatively tolerated Argentina’s rougher, South-American standard of physical contact, which genuinely worked in Argentina’s favor.
But Does That Mean the Referee Fixed the Game? I Disagree
Yet on these points alone, can we say the referee controlled the outcome? I actually disagree.
Argentina were indeed rougher in the physical exchanges, but South American football has always been like this. Using more physical contact when the referee isn’t calling it is a perfectly normal thing — this is something Egypt’s players themselves have to adapt to. Just like in France vs Paraguay, Mbappé said clearly after the match that if they want to play dirty football, then we’ll oblige too — that attitude is the correct way to approach a World Cup.
Among the other disputes, the two most discussed points were: Egypt’s original second goal being ruled out because VAR spotted a foul in the challenge for the ball, and whether Julián Álvarez tripping Salah in the box was a foul.
First, a Common Misconception: No Ref Review Doesn’t Mean VAR Didn’t Intervene
And this brings us to the rules on VAR intervention. First, let’s clear up a common misconception — VAR not replaying, or not sending the referee to look, does not mean VAR didn’t get involved.
In fact, if VAR reviews something and agrees with the referee, feeling the on-field call was fine, then VAR won’t notify the referee — but VAR still genuinely reviews every designated phase. In this tournament, the moments where VAR can clearly intervene are as follows:
1. Goals / No Goals
This is where VAR intervenes most frequently. When a goal is scored, VAR automatically checks in the background whether there was any infringement during the entire “build-up phase” of the goal.
- Key checks:
- Whether there was an offside before the goal.
- Whether the attacking side committed a foul before the goal (e.g. holding, pushing, handball).
- Whether the ball had already gone out of play before the attack began.
- Whether the ball had fully crossed the goal line (if the competition has no goal-line technology).
2. Penalty / No Penalty
Fouls inside the box often directly decide a match, so VAR reviews any penalty awarded or missed.
- Key checks:
- Location of the foul: whether the foul occurred inside or outside the box (this determines penalty vs free kick).
- Whether there was actually a foul: whether the defender committed a genuine foul, or the attacker was diving/simulating.
- Handball disputes: whether a defender’s handball in the box meets the penalty criteria (e.g. whether the arm was in an unnaturally enlarged position).
- Whether the referee missed an obvious foul inside the box.
3. Direct Red Cards
VAR reviews serious fouls or violent acts on the pitch that could warrant a direct sending-off, ensuring no player escapes punishment and no player is wrongly dismissed.
- Key checks:
- Serious Foul Play: e.g. a malicious studs-up lunge, or excessive force.
- Violent Conduct: fighting, retaliatory acts, biting or spitting while the ball is dead or when off the ball.
- Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO): whether the defender fouled as the last line of defense, denying an opponent a certain goal on a one-on-one.
- ⚠️ Absolute blind spot (important exception): VAR cannot review a “second yellow card.” If a player is sent off for two yellows via a hugely controversial second booking, VAR has no authority to intervene and overturn that yellow.
4. Mistaken Identity
This is extremely rare in modern football, but it’s still in the rules.
- Key checks:
- When there’s chaos on the pitch and the referee shows a yellow or red to the wrong player (e.g. two players look alike, or the number was misread), VAR steps in to remind the referee to correct the target, sparing an innocent player.
Egypt’s Disallowed Second Goal: A Textbook Point 1, and a Correct Call
Egypt’s disallowed second goal falls squarely under the second item of point 1: whether the attacking side committed a foul before the goal (e.g. holding, pushing, handball).
On the replay, we can clearly see that Egypt won possession only through a stamping foul, which means their subsequent string of attacking play should all be invalid — including, of course, the resulting goal. So this was actually a correct call.
Some will ask, wasn’t the gap too long? But that ties back to VAR’s timing. VAR only reviews the whole attacking sequence for fouls after a “goal” occurs, and here there was no transfer of possession in between — it was one complete attacking move that ended in a goal, which is what triggered the review. So the reason it feels slow is that VAR only steps out to check the whole sequence once a “goal” is confirmed; had there been no goal, this wouldn’t even be a moment VAR would review.
Julián Álvarez Tripping Salah: VAR Definitely Looked, and Agreed With the Referee
Next, the much-discussed incident of Julián Álvarez tripping Salah in the box. This one was on the edge of the box, so it clearly falls under items 1, 2 and 4 of point 2. So we can be certain VAR did review this one and checked whether a penalty should be given.
But in the end VAR did not notify the referee to look at a replay, so we can basically conclude that VAR’s judgment agreed with the referee’s: no foul. And if we watch the slow-motion footage, we can also clearly see that Julián Álvarez did touch the ball first, then pulled his foot back to avoid contact; the subsequent contact was caused by Salah himself continuing forward, and it was very light, with none of the stamping motion seen in Egypt’s second goal. So it’s entirely understandable that it wasn’t ruled a foul.
Closing: There Are Plenty of Question Marks — but These Two Calls Were Fine
Of course, this edition’s FIFA rules have plenty worth debating, such as Balogun’s deferred red card, so the conspiracy suspicions are understandable. After all, there are simply too many unclear and dubious moments this tournament. Even in this match — while the two most controversial calls were fine — if you want to say the whistle across the whole game leaned toward Argentina, then even as a Messi fan, I can only say: yes, that’s a thing, you’re right.
As for the other arguments, such as Argentina historically committing many fouls but drawing few yellows, I personally find that one even funnier. The number of fouls and the number of yellows aren’t inherently correlated. You could say Argentina prefer to commit petty, purely irritating, pointless little fouls — but citing the yellow-card count as evidence is a bit of a stretch.