Atalanta, the penalty of Bruges was not there: the admission of UEFA

The international press went down hard. “The worst penalty ever?” Writed The Athletic. Even if it were among the top ten, always of scandal it would be. Uefa are not happy, they do not explain how it was possible to whistle the penalty, but on the field it can be there, and above all as in the Var nobody has warned the referee that the action had to be revised. Nyon did not hide that it was a mistake. The Turkish referee Meler has a minimal sin of excessive decision -making, but worse was judged the Dutch Van Van Boekel who did not insinuate the slightest doubt in the colleague. Making the Var a useless tool, if not harmful to the image of football. And Bruges-Atalanta was not the only “case” of this round.

Mariani

–

Nothing comparable to the fall of Nilsson affected by a hook of Mohammad Ali, but an expulsion in Monaco-Benfica has unleashed non-ended controversies. The referee Mariani, on Sunday is his Juve-Inter, waved with a little “lightness” the second yellow on the Frenchman at the Music, minute 52, on 1-0 for the Portuguese, then final result. At the muscled, already warned, he had asked for the second yellow for an opponent. A close round of regulation, a correct decision. But the French had not been aggressive and, said Casarin, there is an eighteenth rule, unwritten: that of common sense. Meler and Van Boekel’s error much more invasive. A decision that can influence the qualification of the Champions League round of 16. Ercere is human. But errors like this, in the VAR era, they are not eligible.

contact sport

–

It is not excluded that the two are stopped by UEFA. The video of the action has been seen and revised. Hien contrasts Nilsson by anticipating him, keeps his arm a little high but how many times have the referees say that football “is a contact sport”? If this is a penalty … Meler until there had directed an easy game well or that perhaps he had made it easy: few fouls, advantages granted with intelligence. He ruined everything to decide, as in the previous 90 ‘, with confidence that became Sicumera. Forgetting that it was not a tackle in midfield.

never rigor

–

Meler has sinned with pride, Van Boekel of Accidia. It may be that the protocol confuses, certainly the video does not help to understand the intensity of an intervention, but here the images are clear: it can never be rigor. The Dutch press is also ruthless towards the former referee. The protocol, therefore. This sometimes funny mystery. There are those who still say that, if the referee has seen, the VAR cannot intervene, upsetting the meaning. It is the opposite: the VAR exists to correct what the referee does not see or hurt. Collina, head of the referees FIFA, said it several times, unheeded. The VAR cannot intervene on a field decision that cannot be evaluated better than the referee. So it is.

protocol change

–

It is not known what Van Boekel told Meler. Certainly the UEFA directive not to go to the video on field often, in order not to interrupt the game flow, it can influence. But it doesn’t mean never go. This is “the” case to see. Beautiful coincidence with the Bastoni case – a corner that is not there and becomes goals – that evidence the limit of the protocol: you cannot go back. The corner closed the action, therefore, if after there is the goal, as in Inter-Fiorentina, although everyone has noticed that the origin is irregular, nothing can be done. In the era of the Var, born to guarantee justice, it is an unacceptable paradox.

board

–

A paradox that gives strength to those who are against the VAR by principle. Try to play a game without and see. We don’t go back. You have to go on improving. The protocol, like all the rules, is modifiable. It is not a heresy to ask that, in cases like San Siro, where the goal is born from the error, one can go back. Not for a lateral remittance without effect. But for a goal yes. The Board agenda, on March 1st in Belfast, is already done. In theory it could be convened an urgent one, but perhaps this is not the case. However, you can start, or resume, an internal debate to find a solution.

challenge

–

Someone asks for the challenge, with the risk of perhaps granting two maximum calls and therefore denying the right third, another contradiction. A couple of more walks at the video could be useful in a system that, with the imminent application of the “almost” automatic offside, step forward towards the “full” one, now also resolves positional offside, without the need for interpretation . And it can focus better on hot cases. It is not to ask too much.