The VAR omitted images that could have been key to determining Atlético de Madrid’s ghost goal that got on the scoreboard against Espanyol (3-3) on matchday 36 of last season, which ended with the blue and white team’s relegation to the Second Division. This has been concluded by two Madrid courts, which have indicated that those responsible for the VAR did not show images that could have helped clarify controversial actions, such as the goal in question or the expulsion of Vinícius in Mestalla.
The match between Espanyol and Atlético, which was played on May 24 at the StageFront Stadium, ended in a three-way tie. The ghost goal of Griezmann It came just before half-time. The referee of the match, Melero López, validated the goal after going to the VAR. As Clos Gómez, responsible for the VAR in that match, later confirmed, the only image they used to validate the goal was the one shown in the broadcast, coming from the ‘spider cam’. Now, Justice concludes that the video arbitration system omitted other images that could have changed that final decision. According to the letter, there were others “that raised doubts as to whether or not the ball had completely entered the goal.”
A victory for Espanyol, with two games remaining, would have placed the Catalan team just one point away from salvation. The blue and white team already challenged the match at the time, but the Competition Committee rejected it. At the moment Espanyol has not reacted to the scandal.
Justice endorses the exclusion of referees due to errors
Related news
In Valencia – Real Madrid (1-0) that ended with the expulsion of Vinicius after the review in the VAR, The court ruling states that “the assistant only showed the images in which the aggression of the Real Madrid player can be seen”, omitting “the rest of the previous images in which the player was attacked by two other players from the opposing team, his aggression responding to an attempt to get away from the previous aggression received.” The Competition Committee itself annulled the expulsion arguing that “The images provided by the VAR assistant were biased.”
This judicial resolution comes after the demand of referee Xavier Estrada and six other VAR referees that the RFEF excluded with two days remaining due to referee errors. The arbitrators considered that this was retaliation for having initiated legal actions against the Federation demanding labor rights. Justice has endorsed the Committee’s decision, pointing out that being appointed to the VAR does not imply “an absolute and unlimited right to be appointed for successive days.”