AC Milan should have had a third goal during their 2-2 draw against Sassuolo, according to the assessments of Open VAR.
Milan once again dropped points at home against a newly-promoted side on Sunday. The away side went in front early on through Ismael Kone, but then a brace from Davide Bartesaghi turned the game on its head as he scored a goal either side of the break.
The drama wasn’t done though as Armand Lauriente came off the bench to level inside the final 20 minutes and the points were shared. It was yet another frustrating afternoon for Milan, after previously failing to beat Cremonese, Parma and Pisa.
Open VAR verdict
Andrea De Marco – the head of institutional relations for CAN A and B – commented on the DAZN show Open VAR about the penalty requested by Sassuolo at the end of the match against Milan for an alleged foul by Pavlovic on Cheddira.
“The referee on the pitch did well to assess the incident and then those in the VAR room did well to not call it out,” he said (via MilanNews).
“From the images you can clearly see that Pavlovic continues his run in a linear fashion, while the Sassuolo player doesn’t try to protect the ball, but extends his leg to make contact with the opponent. Therefore, it was the correct decision not to award the penalty.”
The referee Crezzini, however, did make an error in disallowing Pulisic’s goal because Loftus-Cheek had not committed any foul on the Sassuolo player.
“The referee called a foul. Loftus-Cheek placed his hands on the Sassuolo player’s back, but the intensity of the foul must be assessed,” De Marco added.
“VAR cannot intervene. But given the guidelines we’ve established this year, this cannot be considered a foul, so the goal should have been validated.”
Does nothing to help us, game could have been completely different, and we could have ended up 4 – 1 after. Another immature ref cost us points. (But we could have still done better to recover after their second goal)
Time to change the guidelines for VAR then or just completely abolish it again. Without VAR everyone are on equal terms regardless of how the decisions still can be irritating its better than VAR not being able to intervene when they actually can’t see no foul.
Its not a foul, but is still a contact which makes RLC active in offside position.
you should rewatch it again. RLC was not offside either.
The part I don’t understand is why VAR can’t intervene. If Pulisic scores and the ref calls it a good goal, VAR can intervene to review the supposed foul by RLC, as any foul in the build up to a goal rules the goal invalid. I’ve seen goals chalked off for fouls that occur two or three plays before the goal. So why not the other way around? Why not a VAR intervention for a disallowed goal for a supposed foul in the build up if the the foul is called wrongly? It’s mind boggling.
So, to my understanding, after watching ‘Open Var’ on YT, the explanation they give is that the referee apparently “whistled for a foul”. Since the referee whistled for a foul, under VAR rules, VAR cannot interfere with a normal foul call. Technically, since this call was a foul call and not checking if there was a foul in the build-up to the goal after the goal went in, unfortunately, the VAR could not call back the ref’s decision.
To me, this makes no sense. I do not agree with this ruling. I think especially when a goal is on the line, the VAR should be used to see an error on the refs side for both, NOT calling a clear foul AND for erroneously calling a foul (that wasnt there).
To everyone saying we should abolish VAR, well in this case, the goal would have still been cancelled because it was a referee error and not a VAR error.
You can understand the wording around VAR to prevent them getting involved in every foul call.
The part that puzzles me is why does the ref not call the RLC ‘push’ straight away? He let’s the play conclude and then makes his call.
Like you would when you think there is an offside in a continuous attacking play.
I would have thought VAR could get involved because
– he let play run for a few seconds until it concluded with a goal.
– then back tracked to a foul.
– the ball is in the back of the net
They need to adjust their protocol if they think it cannot intervene here. Not a hard adjustment. “VAR can recommend decisions are reviewed whenever the ball is in the goal from a continuous play.”
Thanks for the explanation though.
That’s an interesting explanation, because I’ve seen refs whistle for a penalty (foul), which is then cancelled upon a VAR review. What is different? That’s it’s a penalty? The logic is suspect. But VAR isn’t the problem. It’s the ambiguity in the interpretation of events. The ref is interpreting what he sees on the pitch and then makes a call. Likewise, the VAR refs still have to interpret what they see on the screen. VAR or no VAR, it’s still subjective. I’d still rather have VAR, because it gives us a chance to get the call right, even if sometimes the wrong call is still made. With the ref on the field only making the calls, there is no chance to fix a mistake.
In situations like this you would wish that each Coach had one “Coaches Challenge” to force a review of the play.
I don’t see why not, we would reduce massive errors on both sides with such a review, and it’s not like VAR doesn’t already waste time on the pitch already.
At the very least the refs would be forced to explain their call immediately, and be called out for bad officiating.
Agree