The clash of the 12th day of Ligue 1 between OL and PSG was marked by various controversies. The Arbitration Directorate looked into these controversies.
The Sunday poster of the 12th round of Ligue 1 between OL and PSG turned to the advantage of the Parisians, at the last second (2-3). At the end of a breathtaking scenario which was not spared, however, by the arbitration controversy. “ The best team in Europe doesn’t need to play at 16, because I count VAR too », Says Gones assistant coach Jorge Maciel. The summary in substance of the Lyon state of mind on Sunday evening.
At the origin of this frustration, at least three incidents of play which harmed OL. Three potential turning points that the Arbitration Department looked into this Monday. It was first of all Ilya Zabarnyi’s hand in the Parisian area which caused debate, because it was not punished with a penalty (28th). Ligue 1+ having shared at the end of the match the images of a magnifying glass demonstrating the Ukrainian defender’s hand fault.
“ The VAR respected IFAB protocol by viewing all angles and images at its disposal, none clearly showing that the decision not to call a penalty was wrong with certainty, and therefore whether Zabarnyi touched the ball or not », However, assures today Amaury Delerue, manager of elite referees at the Arbitration Directorate (DA), as relayed by L’Equipe.
A big doubt about the Vitinha-Tessman duel
Doubt does indeed exist for the DA, however, on the goal awarded to Khvicha Kvaratskhelia (35e). “ This is a very complex situation on which the DA has not been able to determine a 100% unanimous position. Because the ball is touched by Vitinha after contact behind the knee of Tessmann’s supporting leg. This contact impacts his ability to maintain control of the ball. This is why we would prioritize a foul on recovery and a disallowed goal. But we are in a gray zone, which is why the VAR’s decision not to challenge the central referee can be understood. », underlines Amaury Delerue.
A voice from the Refereeing Department which nevertheless categorically rules out the possibility of an error by Mr. Bastien and his assessors on the interpretation of the intervention of Kang-in Lee behind the back of Nicolas Tagliafico in the middle of the penalty area (42nd). “PFor the DA, Lee’s intervention is not punishable under the laws of the game. It is a natural contact which did not prevent Tagliafico from playing the ball.
»
