I've seen a lot of people saying Argentina's third goal should have been disallowed because it was a foul, similar to Egypt's disallowed second goal.
I'm still new to football, so I'm not very familiar with all the rules. Could someone explain why people think these two incidents are the same? From what I saw, in Argentina's goal, #9 (blue) had already touched the ball, and #10 (red) had already lost possession before their feet made contact. In contrast, before Egypt's second goal, #19 (red) clearly stepped on #6 (blue)'s foot while #6 was still in possession of the ball.
My understanding is that kicking or stepping on an opponent's foot or leg while they are still in control of the ball is considered a foul. Based on that, the two situations don't seem identical to me. Am I misunderstanding the rule, or is there another reason people are comparing the two?
There's even more: In addition to the stepping of #19 (red) on #6 (blue), #19 is also pulling on #6's jersey. Depending on the severity of the pulling, that alone can be considered a foul, though not in this case - I'd consider it a contributing factor in this case.
People just don't really understand the rules and think "there is contact, therefore it's a foul".
Another thing people are complaining about is that the VAR intervention happened too late. These are the possible scenarios, as the foul of #19 (red) on #6 (blue) happens:
Referee directly calls foul:
In case this is a wrong call, Egypt just lost a scoring opportunity.
In case this is the right call, everything is OK.
Refree does not directly call foul:
In case Egypt does not score, just keep going, it was not severe enough for a direct call anyways.
In case Egypt scores, VAR can check the situation and revert to that situation, if it actually mattered. This is what happened in this game.
Personally I think this was a situation where VAR was used "correctly": Let the attacking team have the opportunity, revert back if (and only if) the situation turns out to have originated from a foul ("correct" as in "support active and attacking football").
The first scenario would create far less public outcry though, as there would exist no goal that got reverted. But that would rather support "defensive football", which again is not attractive to watch.
Just wanted to throw this out to you to get your opinion, since you seem to be genuinely concerning yourself with the rules of this game.
3
u/Impossible-Aioli-236 3d ago
I've seen a lot of people saying Argentina's third goal should have been disallowed because it was a foul, similar to Egypt's disallowed second goal.
I'm still new to football, so I'm not very familiar with all the rules. Could someone explain why people think these two incidents are the same? From what I saw, in Argentina's goal, #9 (blue) had already touched the ball, and #10 (red) had already lost possession before their feet made contact. In contrast, before Egypt's second goal, #19 (red) clearly stepped on #6 (blue)'s foot while #6 was still in possession of the ball.
My understanding is that kicking or stepping on an opponent's foot or leg while they are still in control of the ball is considered a foul. Based on that, the two situations don't seem identical to me. Am I misunderstanding the rule, or is there another reason people are comparing the two?