Egypt Goal vs. Argentina Controversially Disallowed After VAR Check

Egypt nearly put Argentina on the ropes in the 58th minute of Tuesday's round-of-16 match, until VAR had stepped in. 

Midfielder Mostafa Zico's breakaway goal that would've put Egypt up 2-0 was disallowed after a VAR check determined that midfielder Marawan Attia fouled Argentina defender Lisandro Martínez prior to the goal. However, the foul occurred while Argentina was on the attack, leading to some controversy over whether VAR overstepped its reach. 

"Surely, this is not within VAR's [realm] to review this," FOX Sports analyst Rob Green said on the broadcast. "It's a full length of the pitch away."

FOX Sports soccer officiating expert Dr. Joe Machnik, meanwhile, thought that the fact that it was a foul meant that the goal should've been disallowed.

"A foul in the attacking phase of play, which leads to a goal or possession by the team that [scores] a goal can result in the goal being disallowed and being given a free kick," Machnik explained.

Still, Green thought that Argentina got away with one as he disagreed with the decision.

"What a let off for Argentina. The full length of the pitch," Green continued. "That, 100 yards away, someone stepping on someone's toe is not why VAR was brought into the game. We've got to a point now where we've reached far beyond the powers that it should have. The referee saw the tackle, decided not to give it and Egypt, with a brilliant breakaway goal, have been denied a two-goal cushion." 

Argentina wasn't able to do anything with the ensuing free kick, and Egypt was able to take a 2-0 lead when Ziko scored again in the 67th minute. However, Argentina scored in the 79th minute to cut Egypt's lead to 2-1, and Lionel Messi scored the equalizer in the 83rd minute. So, the disallowed goal looms large. 

‘It Fulfills The Protocol’

After the match, Machnik elaborated on the call on "World Cup NOW" that the process used to take the goal off the scoreboard and call the foul was correct.

"It has long been part of the VAR protocol, this was one of the earliest things that they decided, that they didn’t want a foul which led to the scoring of a goal to enable that goal to be given," Machnik said. "Now, they never said that there was a distance, that the foul was going to be five seconds before or 75 yards away. As long as the one team didn’t regain possession or make a play, that possession was cleanly gained from the foul and that foul led to possession that led to the goal.

"It fulfills the protocol, and that’s why it was disallowed."

While the referee on the field likely saw the tackle, and opted to let play continue, Machnik pointed out that doesn’t mean the on-field decision will always stand.

"Officiating, at this level, is all a question of angles," Machnik said. "So, the angle the referee may have had, that foul happened in a corner of the field. He’s quite a distance away. He might not have had an angle on it. The assistant referee on that side of the field is way up the other end.

"So, what the VAR is saying is, ‘Let me show you a different angle.’ And when you see the different angle, there’s a foul, stepped on his foot."

Machnik acknowledged that VAR did take away a magical moment for Egypt and that the end result won’t always be a decision that people are happy with.

"We don’t like it," Machnik said. "Most of the time, this is how I feel about what VAR has done to the game. About 75% of the time, it takes away something that is fun. The other 25% of the time, it presents us with something that’s ugly and painful."