Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Scott believes the disallowance of the goal was unjustified
Former English referee and refereeing expert Graham Scott has joined the ranks of critics of the refereeing decisions during the 2026 FIFA World Cup Round of 16 match between Egypt and Argentina, stressing that the decision to disallow Egypt’s goal was wrong, while he defended the referee’s decision not to award Mohamed Salah a penalty.
In my published analysisAthletic netScott said Mustafa Zico’s goal, which was disallowed after video technology interference, was a “wrong decision”, explaining that Marwan Attia’s challenge on Lisandro Martinez at the start of the attack was normal contact in football and did not rise to the level of infringement requiring a disallowance.
He added that the incident happened approximately 100 yards from the goal and Argentina had ample opportunity to reorganize their defense before scoring, noting that the Egyptian team’s sense of injustice was justified in this case.
Scott explained that the shooter witnessed light contact between players, whether it was a foot on the leg or a passing tug on the jersey, but he emphasized that it was not a flagrant foul that required video technology intervention.
❌ After reviewing the video technology… the referee deprives the Egyptian national team of a wonderful goal!
🤔 Do you support the decision to cancel the goal? ✍️
#WorldCup2026 pic.twitter.com/2x2trHLpbs— beIN SPORTS (@beINSPORTS) July 7, 2026
The former England referee confirmed that video technology reviews all phases of an attack before a goal is scored, but that a goal can only be disallowed in the event of a clear and blatant foul, which was not the case here.
He added: “The greater the temporal and spatial distance between the incident and the goal, the more obvious the foul must be to justify VAR intervention, which was not the case in this shot.”
Scott, on the other hand, supported French referee Francois Lettxer’s decision not to award Egypt a penalty before Argentina’s third goal, explaining that the contact with Mohamed Salah was very limited and not enough to bring him down or call him a foul.
He concluded his analysis by emphasizing that the two decisions should be consistent, adding: “Just as Egypt’s goal should not have been disallowed, Enzo Fernandez’s goal should not have been disallowed because the penalty requested by the Egyptian national team did not exist.”
