Former Spanish international referee analyzes cases from the 5th round of the Betclic League
ESTRELA DA AMADORA-FC PORTO: penalty against Léo Jaba, signaled by the referee but reversed by VAR
INCORRECT – It is one of the plays that currently generates the most discussion because the referee committees call it a ‘residual penalty’, as it happens after the shot. They recommend not sanctioning these actions as penalties. I don’t agree and I explain why. At no point does the regulation mention whether the foul is made before or after the shot, or whether it is made because the defender arrives late. The rule says that if you entered recklessly or recklessly, it is a penalty. The defender was reckless, he went to the ground, the striker manages to shoot and is then brought down but the ball is still on the field when Pepe brings him down. Law 12 at no point says that if the knockdown is after the shot, it is not a penalty. This is like when the goalkeeper comes out with his fists, the striker manages to head the ball but is then hit by the goalkeeper’s punch. If in this case it is a penalty, it is also in this case. And one more thing: the VAR had no business calling the referee because they should only call him in the event of a clear and obvious error, and that was not the case.
ESTRELA DA AMADORA-FC PORTO: possible penalty on Regis. Referee and VAR ordered play
RIGHT – There’s nothing to this move. The striker, when he dominates the ball with his chest, feels the defender’s arm and lets himself fall, without fail. What the referee should have done was signal an indirect free kick and show yellow to the attacker, by simulation. It’s all very clear: he loses control of the ball, feels the contact and lets himself fall, simulating the foul.
VIZELA-BENFICA: possible penalty for the eagles by Busnic. Referee and VAR ordered play
RIGHT – In this situation there is also no infraction. The ball hits his hand but the defender is in a natural position, his arm is not open, and the action is half a meter away from him. He can’t help it, he can’t take his hand away. It is glued to the body and the defender fights for the ball in a normal way. It’s a game action, there is no foul.
VIZELA-BENFICA: Penalty awarded to Aursnes
RIGHT – It’s a silly penalty but it’s very clear. The defender doesn’t leave space for the forward and causes him to stumble. It’s a ‘hidden’ knock, that is, you run very close to the attacker and then say: no, he was the one who tripped over me. It’s not true, the defender was the one who made him fall.
SPORTING-MOREIRENSE: Marcelo brings down Pote on the edge of the box
INCORRECT – Clear foul to be called and yellow card. I don’t know if the defender already had a yellow card but that’s not even a question, in this case he had to see a card. In this case, the VAR could not do anything because these fouls are not in the protocol, as it is not a clear goal or penalty, it cannot interfere but the referee should have seen the foul because it was very clear.
ESTRELA DA AMADORA-FC PORTO: penalty against Léo Jaba, signaled by the…
Leave your comment
The Post Iturralde González and the penalty against FC Porto reversed by VAR: «The rule says that if it is entered recklessly, it is a penalty» – Liga da Verdade
Originally Posted on www.record.pt