Argentine journalist: The refereeing in the World Cup final was inconsistent; Enzo's first yellow card was too harsh.

In the World Cup final, Argentina lost 0-1 to Spain, missing out on the championship. After the match, Argentine journalist Pablo Carrozza posted a long video on his personal account reviewing the World Cup final, expressing strong dissatisfaction with the refereeing standards.

The following is a translation of part of the video content (due to the original length being too long, only a partial excerpt has been provided):

Enzo Fernandez's first yellow card in the final was highly controversial. He was merely expressing his dissatisfaction with a decision, without verbally abusing the referee. The match was nearing the end of regulation time, about to enter overtime. He simply made a brief gesture of complaint, and the referee immediately showed him a yellow card. In my opinion, Enzo's second yellow card might be somewhat understandable, but the first one should never have been shown.

Let's take a look at the foul statistics: Argentina committed 24 fouls throughout the match, while Spain committed 19, so the difference in the number of fouls between the two sides was actually not that big. But the final result was that Argentina received five yellow cards, and Enzo was sent off after receiving two yellow cards; while Spain received zero yellow cards and zero red cards throughout the entire match.

This had been a concern of mine before the match, and it confirmed the players' pre-match worries. After the match, Otamendi said to Rodri, "You've been crying and making a fuss all week."

In the latter part of the match, Enzo Fernandez's stamina was clearly waning, and he was ultimately sent off with a red card due to a controversial refereeing decision. I still maintain my opinion: his second yellow card was acceptable, but the first one should not have been shown. After Enzo's dismissal, Argentina's situation in the game completely turned against them.

Argentina was indeed very unlucky in this match. Paredes received a yellow card shortly after coming on as a substitute; Lisandro Martinez played through injury but eventually had to leave the field, most likely due to a muscle tear.

The entire team suffered numerous injuries during this World Cup, and Scaloni hinted at this in every press conference, suggesting that the team was struggling to stay afloat. The coach's statement that "the truth will come out sooner or later" actually referred to the team's severe injury woes and the prolonged period of an incomplete squad.

Some have suggested that Scaloni should replace these World Cup-winning starters with less experienced substitutes.

The problem is that if this arrangement is made and the team ultimately loses by a large margin, the outside world will start to criticize: these players clearly helped the team win the World Cup, even if they were injured, why not let them play?

That's often how it is in the world of football; fans tend to only look at the final result.

Let's talk about the much-discussed topic of "Argentina having almost zero shots on goal".

That is indeed the case, but we need to see the objective difficulties the team was facing at the time: two key center-backs were injured and left the field, Montiel and Tagliafico also had physical problems, and the team had already used up all their substitutions.

Goalkeeper Martin played through injury throughout the World Cup, with a broken finger that prevented him from even participating in FIFA's official photo shoot. Yet, he made crucial saves time and time again, becoming a key pillar in Argentina's run to the final.

All four players in Argentina's defense played through injuries.

Scaloni's tactical approach was to wear down Spain's mental and physical energy as much as possible. When opportunities arose, he would control possession and stretch the defense, waiting for Messi and Julian Álvarez to create counter-attacking opportunities.

Unfortunately, Argentina's counter-attacks were unsuccessful, most notably due to their very limited number of shots on goal.

Spain dominated possession and had 20 shots in total, but only three or four of them were truly threatening and on target.

Argentina relied on its defensive system to hold on for 115 minutes, and was just five minutes away from creating an epic result.

If Argentina can hold on until the 120th minute and force the game into a penalty shootout, they have a real chance to win.

Let's consider a different perspective: if a team with four injured players, constantly forced to make personnel changes, could withstand Spain for nearly 130 minutes and ultimately win on penalties, then everyone would praise Scaloni's tactical arrangements as perfect.

But the turning point of the game came in the 115th minute.

Argentina's right-wing defense faltered, with Simeone failing to mark Ferran Torres in time, allowing Spain to break the deadlock. Substitute Molina missed his mark, leading to a cross from the left wing that created an opportunity for a Spanish player, who was unmarked in the penalty area and slotted the ball into the net.

Subsequently, Simeone missed another excellent opportunity in front of goal.

After falling behind, Argentina launched a full-scale counterattack. In previous matches of this World Cup, we have frequently witnessed Argentina pull off comebacks, having accomplished this feat against Egypt, England, Cape Verde, and Switzerland.

But this time, the miracle did not happen again.

Therefore, it is unfair to completely negate Argentina's performance simply because they "did not shoot".

Argentina's original plan was to fight Spain for 120 minutes.

I have full respect for Messi; he remains the core of the team's attack, but Messi is not good at making a lot of defensive runs.

With one less player, the team not only needs to make up for the defensive gap left by Messi, but also has to bear the impact of Enzo's red card.

Under such circumstances, it would be unrealistic to rashly send Lautaro on and have the team push forward to attack.

The imbalance in refereeing standards was also a significant source of controversy in the match. Spain committed 19 fouls without receiving a single yellow card, while Argentina committed 24 to 26 fouls but received five yellow cards. Such a disparity in refereeing is indeed highly unusual.

Furthermore, some fans argued that Spain should have scored a second goal. However, that goal was offside, and the semi-automatic offside detection system quickly ruled it out. Meanwhile, the referee made no call on Otamendi's apparent stamping incident.

In a crucial match like the final, there were significant differences in the refereeing standards. The Spanish players stopped their attack immediately after a suspected foul, but the referee ultimately ruled the goal valid.

Therefore, Spanish fans do not need to use this controversial round to explain or downplay the refereeing issues throughout the match.

This involves more than just a single match decision; it's a power struggle and the geopolitics of football.

The FIFA system involves huge sums of money, and Infantino's core goal is to consolidate his power and position.

This position can bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in business revenue. In the eyes of many, Infantino's influence today has even surpassed that of some traditional world-class figures.