World Cup 2026: Former Premier League referee Graham Scott questions VAR decision to rule out Egypt goal

Former English referee Graham Scott has criticized the decision to disallow Egypt’s second goal in their dramatic 3-2 defeat to Argentina at the 2026 FIFA World Cup, describing the VAR intervention as an overreach.

Egypt were eliminated in the Round of 16 after a thrilling encounter with Argentina national football team, despite taking the lead through Yasser Ibrahim.

The Pharaohs appeared to have doubled their advantage when Mostafa Zico found the net, but the goal was ruled out following a VAR review due to an earlier challenge involving Marwan Attia during the build-up.

Argentina later completed a comeback victory through goals from Cristian Romero, Lionel Messi and Enzo Fernández.

However, Scott, speaking to The Athletic, argued that the decision to intervene and cancel Egypt’s goal was incorrect.

“Marwan Attia’s tackle on Lisandro Martinez at the start of Mostafa Zico’s attack, which resulted in his goal in the 67th minute, was a normal tackle,” Scott said.

He added that the incident occurred a long distance away from Argentina’s goal and that the defending team had enough time to recover.

“Also, that tackle happened about 100 yards from the goal, and then Argentina had every opportunity to regroup and defend.”

The former referee admitted that Egypt’s frustration over the decision was understandable, given the circumstances surrounding the disallowed goal.

“Egypt’s feeling of injustice at the cancellation of the goal after a video review is not surprising,” he explained.

Scott insisted there was no clear foul in the build-up and questioned why VAR became involved in the decision.

“There was some friction in the left corner of the pitch, away from Argentina’s goal, where there was contact between the feet and a slight pull on the shirt, but no foul was committed,” he said.

He further argued that the intervention went beyond VAR’s intended purpose of correcting clear and obvious mistakes.

“The intervention of the video technology was surprising and a huge overstep of its role of correcting only clear and obvious errors,” Scott stated.

“The video technology checks the attack phase before each goal in a routine manner, and it was supposed to go back here to the moment of loss of possession.”

Scott concluded that the decision did not meet the required threshold for VAR involvement, insisting that only obvious mistakes should lead to a goal being overturned.

“There must be a clear error in order to cancel a goal, and the greater the time and distance between the intervention and the goal, the more serious the alleged violation, but there was no error to mention here, and nothing that warranted the intervention of video technology.”

The decision has continued to spark debate following Egypt’s narrow World Cup exit, with several former officials and analysts questioning whether VAR played too significant a role in changing the outcome of the match.