At the end of each day of Ligue 1, the FFF Refereeing Department analyzes certain situations requiring the use of VAR. This time she looked at two decisions taken by Willy Delajod during OM – LOSC.
As part of the fifteenth day of Ligue 1 McDonald's, LOSC found itself pitted against Olympique de Marseille in the heart of the Orange Vélodrome. This opposition was marked by an intense pace, goals, but also contested refereeing decisions. Referee of this meeting, Willy Delajod was jeered by the entire Olympian enclosure, insulted and threatened on social networks, and strongly criticized by Roberto De Zerbi at the final whistle.
Questioned by the local press, the Italian technician was loquacious: “I think the referee never controlled the match. There were key actions that were not fairly refereed this evening (Saturday)”he judged. The two coaches also had completely opposite speeches, launched into a sort of remote duel by the Marseille media, some even accusing LOSC of having been favored at a press conference. These media outings ignited debates on social networks, where the fire did not subside throughout the weekend.
Analysis of the FFF
Accustomed to analyzing and explaining situations that required the use of video assistance, the Refereeing Department of the French Football Federation looked into certain events that occurred during the match between LOSC and Olympique. from Marseille this Saturday.
The analysis begins in the 35th minutewhen the Icelander Hakon Haraldsson collapses into the surface following an intervention by Peter-Emile Hojbjerg : “The Marseille player plays the ball and clearly touches it first, with a controlled movement in the single direction of the ball. It is then that the Lille player touches the ball and hits his opponent's leg. There is therefore no infringementwe can read in a press release.
The right decision not to call a penalty was therefore made.judges the Refereeing Department of the FFF.
The analysis continues with a second vague situation, this one relates to the contact between Gabriel Gudmundsson et Peter-Emile Hojbjerg occurred ten minutes from time (80′) in the Lille area. It was this action that was the source of heated controversy on social networks:
“The Marseille player first has the full opportunity to head the ball and it is later that contact with the Lille player occurs. By maintaining his movement path, the defender naturally tries to position himself in the trajectory of the ball. The intervention of the Lille player can therefore be considered as not being a fault within the meaning of the Laws of the Game.”
Video assistance to the refereeing did not then intervene, considering that it was not a clearly erroneous decision: “The intervention of the VAR was not expected due to the manifest error”details and concludes the FFF Refereeing Department.
Video: Disputed situations
Hakon Haraldsson (36′)
