Viktoria Plzeň’s match with Teplice within the Fortuna League was full of controversial decisions by the judges. The judges’ commission commented on them on Monday and found errors in all three cases.
The match between Pilsen and Teplice definitely did not bore the spectator, even though only one goal was scored. The guests from the north of Bohemia played confident and combination football, the favored Victoria was only saved by a penalty kick.
Chief Judge Marek Radina did not initially judge Mohamed Tijani’s clash with Jan David Beaguel as a penalty, but he changed his mind after seeing the repeated shot. According to the Jury, the VAR should not have intervened at all, as this was a contentious situation and not a manifest error.
“In the 40th minute of the match, the referee ordered a penalty kick for the home team for kicking. Given that this was a borderline situation, VAR should not have intervened in this case, this was not a clear error on the part of the referee. “ stands in a statement on FACR website.
Just three minutes after Beauguel’s penalty turned, another moment of video judges arrived. At first glance, Milan Havel’s classic yellow foul on Robert Jukl was evaluated by the assistants as a potential red card.
Radina went to the screen again and actually drew a red card. And even this time he didn’t have to go or look at the repeated shot, because again it wasn’t an obvious mistake. According to the Referees’ Commission, it was not a matter of frustrating the goal chance, but of frustrating a promising action.
“In the 45th minute of the match, the referee, on the basis of VAR intervention, expelled the home player for frustrating the obvious goal. Given that this was a borderline situation, VAR should not have intervened in this case, this was not a clear error on the part of the referee. “ stands in the FACR text.
The third situation was probably the most confusing. Filip Žák escaped the defense of Pilsen, lost to Jindřich Staňek, but at that moment the flag of the line referee was raised and the goal was not paid. As the assistants did not find an obvious error on the part of the referee, the decision was valid on the field.
The commission found a mistake on the side of the line judge, who raised Teplice’s goal by raising the flag. If the offside situation is borderline, the referees have to decide in favor of the attacking player, ie the Pupil.
“It was a borderline situation where the assistant did not signal an offside. Assistants are instructed not to signal offsets in the event of similar borderline situations. The VAR did not intervene in this case because it was not an obvious error and without the use of a calibrated offside line, it is not possible to decide with certainty whether it was an offside. “
Source: FACR
–
