Open VAR reveals confusion between officials over Parma’s goal vs. Milan

The highly anticipated episode of Open VAR has been released, which reveals the conversations between officials for controversial incidents.

There has been a lot of debate surrounding a couple of key incidents that happened during Sunday’s match against Parma at San Siro, above all the winning goal from Troilo with 10 minutes left, which was initially ruled out for a foul.

Read SempreMilan ad-free and get access to exclusive news. Click here for a free trial!

CAN A-B (Commissione Arbitri Nazionale, handling referees for both Serie A and Serie B) member and former referee Dino Tommasi was present in the studio, providing the official AIA (Italian Referees’ Association) version of events. MilanNews relayed what was said.

First, there’s a reconstruction of what happened during the On-Field Review, with referee Piccinini spoken to by his colleagues Camplone and Pairetto. What emerges is that the final decision on Valenti’s non-foul was essentially made by the VAR room, not the referee on the pitch.

The transcript

VAR room: “Wait, he called a foul, let’s watch calmly.”

Piccinini (addressing the players): “There’s a foul on the goalkeeper. He’s standing still, you can’t touch him.”

VAR room (reviewing the images): “He’s standing still and doing nothing. Valenti does nothing. I want to see number 37 [Troilo] foul the defender. Watch him from behind, he doesn’t foul the defender.”

Piccinini (while talking to the players): “He fouled Maignan. If it’s a mistake, I’ll go and see. He can’t touch him in the goal area.”

VAR room (after checking for offside, which wasn’t there): “For me, it’s a good goal, I think it’s legal. He’s completely still. Tell him that Valenti’s always has his back to him and doesn’t do anything against Maignan. (Now turning to Piccinini) I’ll show you that the Parma player remains still…”

Piccinini (at the monitor): “I think he’s causing an obstruction, right?”

VAR Room: “Number 37 [Troilo] doesn’t commit a foul in my opinion. I’ll show you everything for completeness.”

Piccinini: “I called a foul on the goalkeeper. He stopped a possible intervention, so you don’t see it as a foul?”

VAR Room: “No, for me he remains still.”

Piccinini: “And Troilo instead?”

VAR Room: “Nothing.”

The On-Field Review was characterised by great confusion, as Piccinini turned around a couple of times to calm the benches and left his position for the final announcement while his colleagues were still speaking to him.

The VAR room even wondered what decision he would then communicate to the entire stadium, and as soon as this was reported, they commented with a ‘Good!’. In other words, they heavily influenced his call, despite Piccinini seeming happy with his original decision.

Dino Tommasi’s comments

On the Valenti and Troilo situations: “Piccinini whistled for Valenti’s situation, believing it to be obstruction. In reality, Valenti was completely still, making no move toward Maignan, and not obstructing his exit: he had the right to position himself there at that moment.

“The On-Field Review was correct because there was no foul. Troilo also anticipates Bartesaghi: it’s reminiscent of a De Ketelaere goal in an Atalanta-Milan game. Bartesaghi didn’t even jump. There was a slight contact, but it was physiological after anticipating him.”

On the Corvi vs. Loftus-Cheek clash: “In this situation, it’s definitely an unfortunate clash. Corvi tries to get on the ball, but his team-mate anticipates him. But the dynamics are completely unfortunate.

“It’s disappointing for Loftus and Cheek, but it’s a regular footballing situation: Corvi tries to make a save and his teammate takes the ball away from him. A completely unfortunate clash.”