The first man of the Bertrand Layec’s judiciary, published an analysis of situations from the 5th. Kola Supersport Croatian football league.
Situation no. 1: Vukovar – Slaven Belupo (67 minutes); penalty kick (hand play)
During the attack on the left side of the away penalty space, Homemade attacker no. 28 He sent the ball toward the middle of the penalty area. Guest defender no. 2, who tried to stop the ball by sliding start, accidentally touched the ball with his right hand that was in a normal position for the defender who started the sliding start. The judge allowed the continuation of the game, which is VAR and supported.
According to our technical guidelines, the judge decisions was correct. The hand was in a natural position when peeking without additional and unnatural hands towards the ball, transmits HRT Sport.
Situation no. 2: Vukovar – Slaven Belupo (86 minutes); rude game
The moment the domestic attacker is no. 9 Tried to return control over the ball rival player no. 24 He started on him with a sliding start by excessive force, speed and intensity. The judge did not hesitate and consistently applied our technical guidelines for the security of the player and showed him a direct red card.
Based on the criteria: Intensity, speed, force and shot The judge turned off the player correctly.
Situation no. 3: Varaždin – Dinamo (56 minutes); hinterland and offense in attack
Once a direct free kick is derived to attack Dinamo no. 26 He scored, however, taking into account the position of the attacker, the auxiliary judge thought that the attacker who scored the goal was in punishable hinterland. As in any situation when a hit is scored, VAR analyzes two things:
– Is it a punishable hinterland
– Has an attacking team made a misdemeanor before the hit
Regarding Communications in the VAR Judge (VAR), VAR found that at the time of achieving the hit, there was no hinterland, but VAR could not check the attacking stage (App – a potential offense) due to the loss of electricity.
In accordance with the recording of VAR Judice (Vor), we believe that the VAR Judge was a mistake and should have changed the decision of the auxiliary judge and a recognized goal of a visiting team.
Situation no. 4: Varaždin – Dinamo (90 minutes); penalty kick (hand play)
During a blow to the goal of the away attacker, the home defender stretched his left hand and turned the ball away. The judge, who was properly positioned and under the good angle of viewing, a criminal kick, and warned the defensive player (second yellow card) due to an obvious violation of his hand.
The award of a criminal impact and the exclusion of the defensive player was the correct decision of the judge.
Situation no. 5: Hajduk – Rijeka (59 minutes); reckoned start
When struggling for the ball between the domestic player no. 4 and a guest defender no. 6 The ball first touched the defender. Unfortunately the defender stressed the rival player’s leg tightly.
The judge did not properly estimate the intensity of the contact and considered the defender played the ball and accidentally trampled by the attacker.
According to our technical considerations we think this start should be rated as reckless Due to trashing on the foot of the rival, the judge had to warn the player.
(www.jabuka.tv | Photo: Illustration)
