Incredible! The disallowed goal in Arouca-Boavista that was against the law and VAR: “It’s just that everyone on the field wants…” – I League

The Arbitration Council of the Portuguese Football Federation was, yesterday, live on Sport TV explaining some of the decisions taken by referees and video referees in games of the I League and the Portuguese Cup.

One of the games analyzed was Arouca 2-1 Boavista, from the 29th round of the I League, won by the Arouquenses 2-1. Referee Carlos Macedo and VAR Miguel Nogueira had a lot of work to do. One of the bids analyzed was a goal badly disallowed against Arouca.

In the 57th minute, at a time when Boavista was playing with one less and losing, the referee disallowed a goal from Rafa Mujica, from Arouca, claiming handball in the play.

VAR, well, it was brought to his attention that the player who scored the goal had not played the ball with his hand, so there was no reason to disallow the goal. But Carlos Macedo didn’t understand that and maintained the initial decision, going against the rules (accidental hand) and VAR recommendations.

Video: Watch the disallowed goal against Arouca

Here is the dialogue between the referee and the VAR.

“VAR (Miguel Nogueira): Macedo?

Referee (Carlos Macedo): Yes?

VAR: From here VAR, I recommend that you come to the review area to analyze the foul you marked. He is well?

Referee: But he didn’t throw the ball with his hand?

VAR: He plays, but he doesn’t score. He takes the ball in his hands, but for me the hand is in a completely natural position. He is surprised and the ball ends up hitting his arm and passing to another player.

Referee: Let’s see what I have to do here. Let’s see. Help me there, Miguel.

VAR: In other words, at this moment the ball…

Referee: The ball touches the hand.

VAR: The ball here touches his hand.

Referee: Yes

VAR: And then, next, the number 23 will score. It’s not him. In other words, if it were the player who plays the ball with the hand that scored, we would obviously have to invalidate it.

Referee: In other words, it’s only if it’s him, right?

VAR: Yeah. As the other one is, for me, there is no handball infraction. Before we finalize the decision, let me just validate the entire attack phase, which I didn’t do a little while ago.

Referee: Then please see. He plays the ball with his hand and the other shoots straight away and it’s a goal.

VAR: Right, but it’s not the same player.

Referee: Put this image back in. The arm is open, O Miguel. I know he doesn’t see the ball.

VAR: I understand the interpretation, Macedo. For me, he is surprised and takes the ball.

Referee: Oh Miguel… Let’s go. Ok. In other words, it’s on another player.

VAR: It’s another player. If it’s the same player who scores, we clearly have to cancel it, it becomes factual.

Referee: And what am I going to say? That this is natural? Help me with communication.

VAR: In my opinion, the ball

Referee: It’s just that everyone on the field wants to… Look, I’m going to stick to the decision.”

João Ferreira, from the Arbitration Council, analyzed the move and confirmed the VAR’s good decision, leaving reparations to the field referee for the “incorrect decision”.

“The referee understood that there was an infraction. Here we have to realize that there is an accidental hand, in which the ball comes from behind, hits the Arouca player’s hand, which is actually a little flaccid and completely natural. This does not constitute an infraction. Only the It’s if he scores the goal next, which doesn’t happen. The goal is legal. Correct reading by the VAR, this is an accidental hand. Carlos Macedo had all the tools to validate this goal that he had initially invalidated. referee was that the arm is in an unnatural and open position. What could have led to this decision could have been the fact that the referee no longer had the necessary judgment. An incorrect decision”, analyzed the former referee. .