Arbitrage
The stubbornness of not seeing a penalty in the succession of faults by Ćaleta-Car on the top as well as the lower body of Guessand was taken aback. Because the VAR had challenged the referee, but also because Nice's indignation is not limited to this action.
If the sagacity of the refereeing body will not have been faulted on the clumsy arm of Nandjou punished with a penalty, a whole series of decisions throughout the match have on the other hand aroused incomprehension on the recourse or not to the viewing of the VAR. Used to cancel Nice's first equalizer by returning to a contact that occurred well before Guessand's decisive shot, the video was not considered necessary to judge Lacazette's marking “technique” on his second goal.
The images being particularly telling, they would undoubtedly also have been useful to protect Mohamed-Ali Cho, victim of a spectacular charge from Tagliafico before leaving the field. Ćaleta-Car will not travel empty on Sofiane Diop in the second period either. Two interventions which will have left the refereeing body unmoved, like the one on Guessand. An impunity that raises questions.
The inventory causes great frustration. Especially since it evokes a bitter feeling of déjà vu in Lyon. Where each trip for 3 years and 4 matches has brought its share of misunderstandings, between the penalties that we did not want to see. And those whistled eagerly when reserve seemed necessary.
Yesterday as today, the issue is not to be pitied or to question Lyon's victory. Even if the caricature would be easy. The wait is elsewhere. The club contacted the Technical Refereeing Department as well as the LFP to obtain answers to its questions, in particular by accessing the sound recording of the exchanges between the referee and the VAR. Explanations which, depending on the country and the sport, are public. Clarifications on the assessment of these situations are expected in Nice. To understand, finally. If this is even possible…
