Despite Fulgini's flagrant foul on Bilal Nadir, the Lensois railed against the refereeing and the goal refused for the 2-2. The federation explains.
On the last day of Ligue 1, RC Lens' goal was disallowed for a foul at the start of Fulgini's action on Bilal Nadir. The Lensois railed against this decision since they took the 3-1 goal on Pierre-Emile Hojbjerg's free kick. The FFF explains the decision taken.
ALSO READ: Mercato OM: “Pogba in Marseille? I don't think this is the right place for him.”
“The charge by Lens player no. 11 (Angelo Fulgini, editor's note), committed deliberately and recklessly at the start of an offensive phase ending with a goal scored, prevents Marseille player No. 26 (Bilal Nadir, editor's note) from playing normally the ball. 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,” published the FFF on Tuesday.
Lens – OM: Grégory Schneider’s astonishing vision on match refereeing!
The incident in question from this Lens – OM match concerns an action where Fulgini, a Lens player, pushes Nadir with both arms. Gregory Schneider believes that the referee had the right not to whistle this foul. According to him, the referee showed too subjective an interpretation of the regulations, describing the incident as “very dark gray” and letting VAR decide.
The journalist Schneider questions the notion of “obvious error” remains vague and subject to debate. The journalist deplores the confusion created by VAR, which, instead of clarifying situations, seems to introduce more ambiguity into the refereeing of matches. “Applied to Saturday’s situation, the regulations are clear. Lensois goal and two everywhere. Even though the consensus would rather have blamed Nadir and OM: even if Fulgini puts his shoulder (which is authorized) and the OM midfielder ostensibly dives, the Lensois player pushes him with both arms. We are therefore on very dark gray, but the referee said white (I am not whistling) rather than black (I am whistling) and it turns out that this was his responsibility since we are within his field of interpretation. Which refers to the notion of “manifest error” at the heart of the regulation, a notion ultimately as obscure as the roots of monotheism. »
Even if Fulgini puts his shoulder (which is authorized) and the OM midfielder ostensibly dives
Despite this controversy, OM retained their victory and solidified their position on the podium. If the Lensois showed their dissatisfaction after the meeting, Fulgini's fault is glaring. The referee could have avoided a controversy by blowing the whistle directly. Schneider never misses an opportunity to tackle the Marseillais rightly or wrongly…
Ultimately, this situation serves as a reminder that VAR, which is supposed to guarantee greater precision in refereeing, can also generate confusion and frustration. The quest for clear and impartial justice in football remains more complex than ever.
Related News :