–
Journalist
Passionate about football since a young age, becoming a sports journalist quickly became obvious to Hugo. He would later discover a love for the NBA, before exploring other horizons such as Formula 1 and the NFL.
Beaten by OM last Saturday (1-3), RC Lens had in their throats the goal refused to Rémy Labeau-Lascary which would have allowed them to come back to 2-2, but refused after intervention by the video assistance for a fault at the start of the action. A fact of play analyzed by the technical direction of refereeing of the FFF, which agreed with Eric Wattellier, referee of the match.
L’ABOUT was scared last Saturday facing the RC Lens. While leading by two goals, the Olympians saw the Sang et Or reduce the gap in the score, before they equalize via Rémy-Labeau-Lascary. But the latter's goal was ultimately canceled after intervention by the video assistance, due to a foul committed by Angelo Fulgini on Bilal Nadir at the start of the action.
“A lot of things are happening that are not very clear”
« You don't have to look from noon to two p.m. I am told that at half-time there is an impossible cinema in the tunnel to put pressure on the referee. Oddly in the second half, there are a lot of things happening that aren't very clear. It happens too often. The fact that we didn't score made us lose, but as a football fan, the referee has an important role to play. Today, it's difficult not to talk about refereeing from the moment Lens equalizes and makes it 2-2 », Will Still declared at a press conference.
The verdict of the technical direction of arbitration
In its debrief released on Tuesday, the technical direction of arbitration of the FFF gave reason to Eric Wattellier for having canceled the goal of Rémy Labeau-Lascary : « The charge by Lensois player no. 11, committed deliberately and recklessly at the start of an offensive phase ending with a goal scored, prevents Marseille player no. 26 from playing the ball normally. It thus constitutes a fault within the meaning of the Laws of the game. In accordance with the protocol for implementing video assistance to refereeing, the referee must here “view the action until the start of the offensive phase leading to the goal and (…) the recovery of the ball at the origin of the start of this phase of play”. The video referee therefore alerted the referee before the game resumed and invited him to watch at the side of the field. The goal was thus logically refused and the game was correctly resumed with a direct free kick punishing the initial fault. »
