Аргентинд хожигдсон тоглолтын шүүгчийн шийдвэрүүд болон VAR-ын ашиглалт шударга бус байсныг Египетийн хөлбөмбөгийн холбоо эсэргүүцэж байна.
Атланта хотноо болсон ДАШТ-ий шөвгийн 16-ын тоглолтод Аргентин 0:2-оор хожигдож явсан ч тоглолтын төгсгөлд гурван гоол оруулснаар 3:2-оор хожиж, шөвгийн наймд шалгарлаа. Египетийн дасгалжуулагч Хоссам Хассан тоглолтын дараа шүүгч Франсуа Летексьег Аргентины талд үйлчилсэн гэж буруутгаж, тэмцээний шударга байдалд эргэлзэж байгаагаа илэрхийлсэн юм. Тэрээр Египетийн оруулсан хоёр дахь гоолыг VAR-аар шалгасны эцэст тооцоогүй нь алдаатай шийдвэр байсан гэж үзэж байна.
Шүүгчийн шинжээч Грэм Скоттын дүгнэлтээр, Египетийн гоолыг хүчингүй болгосон нь VAR-ын хэтэрсэн оролцоо байсан гэв. Атиа болон Лисандро Мартинез нарын хоорондох биеийн хүчний тулаан нь гоол оруулахад нөлөөлөхүйц алдаа биш байсан бөгөөд VAR-аар залруулах шаардлагагүй байв. Харин Мохамед Салахын эсрэг гаргасан алдааны тухайд торгуулийн цохилт өгөх шаардлагагүй байсан гэж тэрээр үзжээ.
Египетийн хөлбөмбөгийн холбоо шүүгчдийн шийдвэр тоглолтын явцад шууд нөлөөлсөн гэж үзэн, олон улсын шинжээчид ч энэ асуудлыг анхааралдаа авч байна. Тэд ФИФА-гийн ДАШТ-ий түвшинд шүүлтийн ил тод байдал, шударга ёсыг дээдлэх нь нэн чухал болохыг онцоллоо. ФИФА уг асуудлаар албан ёсны тайлбар өгөхөөр ажиллаж байна.
Дэлгэрэнгүй эх сурвалжийг харах
Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
The Egyptian Football Association (EFA) has said it “cannot remain silent” over what it described as a “failure to make appropriate use of the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system” during the nation’s World Cup last-16 loss to Argentina.
Argentina came from 2-0 down with 11 minutes to play to win 3-2 in a turbulent clash in Atlanta, setting up a quarter-final against Switzerland on Saturday.
Egypt were unhappy about the way the game unfolded, believing that several key decisions went against them. After the match, head coach Hossam Hassan claimed his side was wrongly denied a second goal at 1-0, following a VAR check, and that Egypt should have been awarded a stoppage-time penalty moments before Enzo Fernandez scored Argentina’s third.
Hassan said he will “never watch the World Cup again, because there’s no justice in this competition”, and questioned the decisions of French referee Francois Letexier.
“There seems to have been pressure on the Argentinian side on the referee that has brought about this outcome,” Hassan said.
On Wednesday, the EFA said that several key incidents throughout the game “raised serious concerns and left profound questions about the consistency and fairness of decisions that directly influenced the course of the game”.
Its statement continued: “A number of football experts and specialist analysts, both locally and internationally, have highlighted controversial and influential refereeing incidents during the match.
“This underlines the importance of maintaining the highest standards of integrity, fairness, and transparency in match officiating, particularly in a competition of the stature and significance of the FIFA World Cup 2026.”
FIFA has been approached for comment.
The decision to disallow Egypt’s goal was wrong
Analysis by refereeing expert and former Premier League official Graham Scott
The decision to disallow Egypt’s goal is incorrect. Attia’s challenge on Lisandro Martinez in the build-up to Ziko’s 67th-minute effort was normal contact and should be regarded as such, rather than considered a foul.
It was also almost 100 yards from goal, and Argentina had every opportunity to regroup and defend — no wonder Egypt felt aggrieved that the eventual goal was disallowed after a VAR review.
If we look at the incident, there was some contact, both foot-on-foot and a fleeting hold of the shirt (see the image below), but there was no offence worthy of a VAR call-back committed here.
You can also see how far up the pitch it takes place, too.
Argentina also have plenty of players back to defend.
It was an astonishing intervention and a massive overreach of the VAR’s role to correct only clear and obvious errors.
The VAR routinely checks the attacking phase of play before every goal, and here would have gone back to the turnover of possession.
For a goal to be chalked off, there needs to be a clear foul, which there wasn’t here. As a general rule of thumb, the longer the time and distance between a challenge and a goal, the more serious the alleged offence needs to be.
But there was no offence to speak of here, and nothing anywhere near the threshold for VAR to get involved.
By the same logic, Egypt’s penalty claim for an alleged foul on Mohamed Salah shortly before Argentina’s winning goal was rightly dismissed. There is some minor contact on his boot, below, but not enough to send Salah over. It was not a foul.
Just as Egypt’s ‘goal’ should not have been ruled out, nor should Fernandez’s.
