The Egyptian Refereeing Committee has relied on full audio recordings from the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) room to refute claims that referee Mohamed Maarouf advised Al Ahly’s director of football, Wael Gomaa, to substitute a player who was at risk of receiving a second yellow card. The committee stated that the recordings showed no such request or attempt to protect the player from expulsion.
What the Recordings Revealed
According to the committee’s statement, the conversation between Maarouf and Gomaa was limited to the Al Ahly official demanding a foul be called in his team’s favor. The referee responded that the play did not involve an infraction and that the VAR official had already reviewed it. The committee emphasized that the recordings contained no request from the referee to substitute Ali Mahmoud or any attempt to shield him from a red card.
How the Controversy Began
The dispute started after a narrative circulated claiming that Maarouf had told Gomaa to replace the player out of fear he would receive a second yellow card. This story quickly spread across sports programs and social media, prompting contradictory accounts. The conflicting versions led the refereeing committee to review the recordings, which they considered the definitive way to establish the content of the conversation, free from personal impressions or memory.
The committee held a meeting to discuss the incident and listened to the actual match recordings. The review showed that the discussion was solely about the Al Ahly official’s protest and the referee’s explanation that the play was legal and had been checked via VAR. Thus, the committee did not deny that communication occurred between Maarouf and Gomaa, but it denied the specific content attributed to that communication—a distinction that turned the recordings from mere technical material into decisive evidence in a media controversy.
When Do Referee Recordings Begin?
Former international referee and former head of the Egyptian Refereeing Committee, Yasser Abdel Raouf, explained to Sky News Arabia that referee communication recordings do not start with the match kickoff but rather from the moment the officiating team is in the dressing room. The recording begins when communication devices are tested to ensure proper connection between the referee, assistants, and the VAR room. From that point, all conversations conducted through the system become part of the match recording.
The device does not record continuously during the half-time break. The referee’s device is disconnected after the first half and reconnected for the second half. The fourth official’s device has a different recording nature, as it allows him to control communication with the rest of the team. This is because his role requires him to speak with coaches, substitutes, team officials, and others outside the field of play. The system aims to prevent ambient noise around the fourth official from reaching the rest of the team, which could disrupt important communications during play.
Who Keeps the Recordings?
According to Abdel Raouf, the company operating the VAR technology records the match in both audio and video. This material includes the full match events, along with conversations between the referee, assistants, and their communications with the VAR room. There is also a camera inside the VAR room or the broadcast vehicle used for the technology, depending on the system, to document the work of the video referees and how they handle officiating situations.
After the round, the company hands over the storage unit containing all match recordings to the refereeing committee. The committee can then refer to any match or incident, listen to the related dialogue, and compare it with the match footage and officiating reports. This mechanism allowed the committee to review the Al Ahly vs. ZED match conversations instead of merely asking the referee or team officials what happened.
Abdel Raouf noted that clubs might be able to listen to VAR conversations if the competition regulations grant them that right, but the recordings remain official material managed by the organizing body and the refereeing committee.
Is Referee Communication a Violation?
Merely speaking with a team official is not a violation, according to Abdel Raouf. He stressed that the referee has the authority to communicate with members of technical and administrative staff and anyone within the field area, as long as the conversation is related to match management and within the framework of the law. He said, “The referee is the king of the field, and in all cases, he has the right to communicate with any individual in the technical staff or on the field in general, within the framework of the law.”
Therefore, the assessment is not about whether the conversation occurred but about its content and context. Communication could be normal for explaining a decision or calming a protest, but it becomes subject to accountability if it includes improper guidance or an attempt to give a team or player an advantage not permitted by the laws of the game. In the Al Ahly and ZED incident, the review proved there was a discussion about an officiating decision, but it did not prove the more serious claim about alerting Al Ahly to substitute a player threatened with expulsion.
A Test of Transparency
The refereeing committee stressed the need to verify facts before issuing judgments or circulating inaccurate information, affirming that it handles officiating-related observations according to principles of transparency and objectivity. The committee also praised the decision of the Supreme Council for Media Regulation to summon the legal representative of the channel that raised the issue to a hearing, considering the step aimed at regulating the media landscape and maintaining professional standards.
The significance of the incident extends beyond clearing the referee of the attributed statement. It demonstrated that recorded conversations can reveal what happens in spaces not captured by broadcast cameras, and that referring to them may become necessary whenever an undocumented narrative turns into an accusation that affects the integrity of referees or the fairness of competition.
