World Cup 2026: FIFA referee chief Collina clarifies why Egypt’s goal was ruled out and Salah was denied penalty

FIFA has defended the major refereeing decisions that overshadowed Egypt’s dramatic 3-2 defeat by Argentina in the World Cup round of 16, with the governing body’s head of referees, Pierluigi Collina, explaining why the Pharaohs had a goal ruled out and were not awarded a late penalty.

The match sparked widespread debate after Egypt saw a goal disallowed for a foul earlier in the attacking move, while Mohamed Salah’s appeal for a penalty moments before Argentina scored the decisive third goal was waved away.

The incidents prompted criticism from Egypt’s players and coaching staff, while former players and refereeing experts offered differing opinions over the decisions.

FIFA explains disallowed Egypt goal

Collina said FIFA does not usually comment publicly on individual refereeing decisions during tournaments, but chose to do so because of the level of discussion surrounding the match.

“We don’t usually prefer to comment on specific refereeing decisions during tournaments, but we recently explained how referees deal with players’ attempts to obstruct goalkeepers, and therefore we saw the need to clarify another point that has generated a lot of discussion,” he said via FIFA’s official website on Thursday.

He explained that every goal is automatically reviewed by the Video Assistant Referee, with officials examining the entire attacking sequence leading up to the goal.

“After any goal is scored, the video referee reviews the entire offensive possession phase. If a violation is detected during the build-up of the attack and it had a direct impact on the goal, the video referee recommends that the referee review the footage on the screen.”

Collina added that FIFA’s VAR protocol does not place a time or distance limit on how far back officials can review an attacking move.

“There are no time limits or a specific distance between the violation and the goal until it is counted.”

Addressing the specific incident involving Egypt’s disallowed goal, he said the offence occurred when Marwan Attia challenged Argentina defender Lisandro Martinez.

“In the Argentina-Egypt match, Egyptian player Marwan Attia clearly stepped on Lisandro Martinez’s foot.”

He added: “From our point of view, a violation remains a violation, no matter how clear it is. And if the referee does not see it on the field, then the video referee has the right to intervene.”

Why Salah was not awarded a penalty

Collina also explained why referee Francois Letexier and the VAR team rejected Egypt’s appeal for a penalty after Salah went down following contact with Julian Alvarez.

“If no violation is detected during the build-up to the attack leading to the goal, the video referee informs the referee of that.”

He said officials judged Alvarez to have played the ball before making contact with the Egypt captain.

“Stepping on the opponent’s foot is a foul, but if the defender touches the ball first and then there is normal contact afterwards, there is no foul.”

He added that the same interpretation was applied in Salah’s case.

“The referee and the video assistant referee considered the contact between Mohamed Salah and Julian Alvarez to be a normal contact in football.”

According to FIFA, an additional camera angle showed Alvarez reaching the ball before the collision with Salah. The governing body also noted that Salah quickly resumed play and tracked back as Argentina launched the counter-attack that resulted in the winning goal.

Debate over the decisions continues

The controversial incidents divided opinion among former players and refereeing analysts.

Former England internationals Alan Shearer, Gary Neville and Roy Keane were among those who believed Egypt had been denied key decisions, a view shared by former Argentina forward Claudio Lopez.

Refereeing expert Graham Scott argued that Egypt’s disallowed goal should have stood, while the specialist platform Archive VAR maintained that the intervention was correct and in line with the laws of the game.

Collina acknowledged that not every refereeing decision will achieve universal agreement but expressed confidence in the overall standard of officiating at the tournament.

“There will always be room for personal judgment in some refereeing decisions, but we are satisfied with the way these principles have been applied throughout the tournament.”