ไทย
English
中國人
Spain's refereeing authority concluded that Real Madrid may have deserved a stoppage-time penalty for a foul on Kylian Mbappé in the closing moments of a 1–1 stalemate against Girona. Nevertheless, the same body maintained that VAR was correct in choosing not to step in.
With the scoreline deadlocked at 1–1 deep into the 88th minute, Mbappé drove into Girona's penalty box. After already getting past Álex Moreno, Madrid's No. 10 cut by Vitor Reis only to be caught by the center back's extended elbow.
Spain's Technical Committee of Referees (CTA) representative Marta Frías told Tiempo de Revisión that it was a "reckless" act which "is subject to being penalized as a penalty."
"The action can be considered reckless because the defender used an arm that ended up hitting the attacker's face during the play," it was stated. "The defending player, with his arm stretched back to create space after the forward cut inside, recklessly strikes the forward in the face, obstructing the attacker who loses the chance to continue with the ball under his control."
However, on-field referee Alberola Rojas allowed play to continue and VAR official Daniel Trujillo Suárez chose not to intervene. Madrid were left to settle for a 1–1 draw, a result that leaves them nine points behind Barcelona at the top of La Liga.
Why the Referee Did Not Give Real Madrid a Penalty
As Frías explained: "There is contact with the forward's face and, almost at the same time, contact with the attacker's standing leg. All of this stems from the momentum and flow of the play. As a consequence of this challenge, the attacking player goes down to the ground." Yet no call from Rojas was made.
"The referee, well-positioned and with a clear line of sight to the play, decides to allow it to continue," Frías added. "This is a situation open to different interpretations. The referee may view the contacts observed as arising from the players' own collisions and the natural movement following the cut inside.
"He does not perceive a clearly careless gesture or the use of the arm with enough force to constitute a punishable foul. The referee makes a judgment call in the moment, determining that there are no definitive elements to penalize the action and choosing to let play go on."
Why VAR Was Right to Not Intervene
While the CTA acknowledged that Rojas could have awarded a penalty, VAR was considered justified in standing down, as the incident did not reach the threshold of a "clear and obvious error."
"Since this is a clearly interpretive situation in which no clear and obvious error is evident in the on-field referee's decision, the VAR acted appropriately by not intervening," it was determined. "Under VAR protocol, a review is only justified when there is undeniable evidence that enables the correction of a clearly mistaken decision."