Thirteen minutes into the second half, the packed Atlanta Stadium on Tuesday witnessed a dramatic swing in emotions. Egypt were in dreamland. Yasser Ibrahim's 15th-minute opener had just been followed by Mostafa Ziko's 58th-minute strike, prompting wild celebrations from the Egyptian players, who believed they had moved 2-0 up against the defending champions. It was a scoreline few had imagined. Argentina had never recovered from a two-goal deficit at a FIFA World Cup, and Lionel Messi's side suddenly found themselves staring at a stunning Round-of-16 exit. As Egyptian fans celebrated, Messi looked on helplessly while the sea of Argentine supporters fell into stunned silence.
The silence, however, lasted only a few moments. A VAR intervention ruled out Ziko's goal for a foul in the build-up, handing Argentina an unlikely lifeline.
Nine minutes later, Ziko struck again to restore Egypt's two-goal cushion. But Argentina mounted a remarkable comeback, scoring three times in the final 13 minutes to snatch victory and keep their World Cup dream alive.
Did VAR deny Egypt the greatest upset of the FIFA World Cup? That's the question dominating football after Ziko's disallowed second-half goal against Argentina. While the Egyptians cried "daylight robbery" after their dramatic Round-of-16 defeat, a detailed refereeing analysis has concluded that the VAR intervention was incorrect and that the goal should have stood.
What happened?
Egypt thought they had taken a commanding 2-0 lead in the 58th minute, a goal that appeared set to leave Lionel Messi's Argentina on the brink of elimination. It would have been one of the defining moments of the tournament, with the defending champions staring at a shock exit after Neymar, Luka Modric and Cristiano Ronaldo had already bowed out.
{{/usCountry}}Egypt thought they had taken a commanding 2-0 lead in the 58th minute, a goal that appeared set to leave Lionel Messi's Argentina on the brink of elimination. It would have been one of the defining moments of the tournament, with the defending champions staring at a shock exit after Neymar, Luka Modric and Cristiano Ronaldo had already bowed out.
{{/usCountry}}However, following a VAR intervention, the goal was ruled out for a foul in the build-up by Egypt defender Marwan Attia on Argentina's Lisandro Martinez.
VAR review
The jubilant celebrations from the Egyptian players and supporters in Atlanta, and the stunned reaction inside the Argentina camp, were abruptly halted when VAR recommended an on-field review for a possible foul by Attia before the goal.
The replay showed Attia briefly holding Martinez's shirt while also stepping on the defender's foot. After reviewing the footage, referee François Letexier accepted the VAR recommendation and disallowed the goal.
Why Egypt believe they were victims of daylight robbery
The challenge involving Attia occurred almost 100 yards from goal, meaning Argentina had ample time and opportunity to regroup defensively before Ziko found the net (check the images below). While there was some contact, both foot-on-foot and a brief shirt pull, the key question is whether it amounted to a foul serious enough to justify VAR intervention.
According to former Premier League referee Graham Scott, the answer is no.
Scott argued in his analysis for The Athletic that the incident involved only normal football contact and fell well below the threshold required for VAR to overturn a goal.
"The decision to disallow Egypt's goal is incorrect. That challenge was normal contact and should be regarded as such, rather than considered a foul. It was an astonishing intervention and a massive overreach of the VAR's role, which is to correct only clear and obvious errors," Scott wrote.
VAR routinely checks the entire attacking phase before every goal, tracing play back to the turnover of possession. But as a general refereeing principle, the greater the distance and time between an incident and the goal, the more obvious and significant any offence needs to be before intervention is justified. Scott's view was that this challenge never met that standard.
Interestingly, he also applied the same logic to Egypt's penalty appeal for an alleged foul on Mohamed Salah shortly before Argentina's winning goal. Salah went down inside the penalty area after slight contact on his boot, but Scott believed the officials were correct not to award a penalty.
"Just as Egypt's 'goal' should not have been ruled out, nor should Fernandez's," he added.
Ziko eventually did score in the 67th minute to restore Egypt's two-goal advantage, this time without any VAR intervention. But Argentina produced a remarkable late comeback, scoring three times in the final 13 minutes to book a place in the quarter-finals, where they will face Switzerland.
After the match, Ziko vented his frustration with the officiating while speaking to TSN through a translator.
"It was not fair from the referee. It was really not fair. That was very clear. He wasted all of our efforts with his decisions. We were leading 2-0 and we could do nothing. It's all up to God.
"We are so sorry. We wanted to make you all happy. It was not on the cards. It was the referee. Congratulations to Argentina on the second Cup."