You think someone standing there not paying attention to the match, waving their selfie stick around, holding up flags and getting in the way of others’ views is ok?
Well, at least they are not from Paraguay:
//i\\
The Salah challenge is the one they showed a replay for, and that’s not getting called back no matter where on the field it occurred because it wasn’t a foul.
But what irks the Egyptians is not that challenge, which indeed was not a foul. It was, as cited by the Spanish AS and the German Handelsblatt
One incident that particularly infuriated Hossan Hassan [the Egyptian coach, P-Lux]: just before Enzo Fernández scored the winning goal for Argentina to make it 3–2 in stoppage time (90+2), his team-mate Alexis Mac Allister had pulled the shirt of the Egyptian player Hamdi Fathi as he entered the Argentine penalty area. The Egyptians appealed for a penalty, but Letexier waved play on.
They did not show a replay of that alleged foul, so I don’t know whether a penalty should have been given and Argentina’s goal disallowed or not.
This was a typical case of “probably a penalty in the Bundesliga but never in Premier League”. The defender tucked Fathi’s jersey very very lightly and shortly, and this could never have led to Fathi falling, but of course he went to the ground anyway. But according to the letters, any jersey tucking should be a foul, so the Egyptians have a point.
You’re conflating a lot of behaviors. Not paying attention to a match or taking a few selfies is fine. Blocking the view of others is not, and that goes for rabid fans holding team flags in front of others as well as influencers filming their next reel. I roll my eyes at influencers because they are annoying in all environments, not because they are specifically at a soccer game.
You also complained about people cheering for both sides. That’s just someone enjoying the game differently than you do. You can see many people in this thread commenting “I don’t care who wins, I just want a good game.” That is a perfectly acceptable way to enjoy soccer.
I think I come from a very different football culture. Let’s move on!
IF the referee truly waved “play on”, that means he’s seen the foul and is choosing to let the offended player’s team continue to play with advantage. If the advantage doesn’t materialize, the referee has the option - within a very short time window - to call back play and award a free/penalty kick. It’s highly unusual to play advantage in the area, but not unheard of. I did not watch the game, so I don’t know the deets of the play in question.
“Play on” has a specific meaning in referee-speak, which a lot of fans/commentators/players misunderstand. It means the referee spotted a foul and in the moment felt that to award a free kick would unduly benefit the defending team, so the attacking team is allowed to proceed “with advantage”. If the attack breaks down in the 2-4 seconds after the “play on” call/signal, the referee blows the whistle and enforces against the original foul.
“Play on”, whether by voice or signal, does NOT mean the referee didn’t see a foul. The more typical signal for that would be a baseball umpire-style ‘safe’ signal, as in “Nothing to see here, folks.”
It may well be that the journalist misunderstood the play on gesture, or that he misunderstood another gesture to be a play on gesture, because reading your explanation of what this gesture means it makes no sense to wave “play on” when an Argentinian player (Alexis Mac Allister) commits a foul against an Egyptian player when the Argentinians have just won back possession of the ball. There simply is no advantage for Egypt to wait for, the ball is gone for them.
I guess the referee waved get up, no foul, to the Egyptian player and the journalist called that “play on” for Argentina, ignoring that this expression has a different, very specific meaning in football. Which I did not know in such detail either, thanks for the explanantion!
The “play on” gesture is pretty distinctive, two arms thrust up on a majestic diagonal, but I also feel like I’ve seen more “get the fuck up and stop whining” gestures from referees in this Cup than in the last five combined, and I wonder if that confuses people. Players should certainly understand the difference.
Yeah, that’s the gesture, but it both can mean “play on because this wasn’t a foul” and “play on although this was a foul, but you’re in advantage”. In the second case, the ref can still blow the whistle for a free kick (or a penalty) when the advantage doesn’t materialize. But this was never the question in the case of Fathy probably being fouled, there wasn’t an advantage situation.
Yeah, I’m going to have to agree with P-L that the play on gesture is not reserved for advantage situations in my refereeing experience, though that was 30 years ago and I’m not necessarily up on the latest intricacies of refereeing. For instance, as a linesman/AR, the ball might be rolling along a touch line but not quite out of bounds, so I might use the play on signal to clarify for the players and center referee that the ball is still live. You could just stand there with your flag down and everyone should “just know” what’s going on, but it’s generally considered good game management to clarify situations like that. Similarly, when something happens that could questionably be a foul or not, the center referee could just do nothing if he sees the situation and isn’t going to call a foul, but again it’s good game management to signal “play on” for “I’ve seen what happened, I’m not calling a foul, keep playing,” and they may or may not come back to award a foul if warranted.
My experience is that the concept of ‘advantage’ only gets applied in the case of a foul, and that’s when the two-armed signal is supposed to occur. The devil is in the details of application, of course.
Sure. Almost all of those people probably bought the tickets long before they knew who was going to be playing in the game, because they wanted to see a World Cup match. Should they just have to arbitrarily choose one of the teams and pretend to care about them in order to be considered Real Supporters?
A lot of this is down to the way some writers, and just about all of the American TV commentators, say things like, “And the ref says ‘play on’”. What they mean is that “the ref has decided there is no foul”. But what they are actually saying is that the referee has decided to play the advantage rule (i.e. there was a foul but because whistling it would give an advantage to the offending team they are not doing so).
Poor terminology use causes confusion.
There is no official signal (AFAIK) for this but yes, a ref might do a “safe” (baseball) gesture, or they might do a sort of an irritated “Come on!” arm gesture like “Ok, let’s keep going, no foul here.”
I used to ask my ARs to give me a small arm sweep with their empty (that is, non-flag) hand if they were sprinting down the touchline alongside the ball/players to tell me the ball was remaining in play, but it’s not an official signal.
Not per FIFA. The arm sweep - it’s now referee’s choice to make it a two-arm sweep or a single-arm sweep - ONLY means “I’ve seen a foul and you (the attacker) have the benefit of advantage.” The ‘safe’ signal of two arms sweeping out horizontally means “nothing there, keep playing”, while two arms moving upwards with palms up means “get up you lying bastard, you weren’t fouled and you’re close to getting booked for simulation.”
Ah, I didn’t know this. Thanks.
Actually, that last bit (“Get up you lying bastard…”) was how I used it, but I think many of my brethren had the same sentiments with that gesture. FIFA would not officially approve, I don’t think.
ETA: The single-arm sweep is a relatively new change, and I think it was to make it an easier signal to make while running at speed. Trying to swing both arms while sprinting can make it tough to keep your balance.
At least they wouldn’t state your interpretation verbatim. They’re all gentlemen, you know. 
Back when it was a “gentlemen’s game” is when the referee came into being. The two sides were originally expected to call their own fouls. Eventually, organizers felt it necessary to have an impartial third party to which they could refer to adjudicate fouls. Hence, the referee, the one to which they refer.
You might be able to use that information to win a bar bet!