After each day of Ligue 1 McDonald’s, the FFF Refereeing Department analyzes certain situations which required the use of video assistance during the weekend.
Rennes – SAINT-ÉTIENNE
Following the execution of a corner, the ball returns to Rennes player n°17 who hits the goal from the entrance to the penalty area (34th). The ball is then deflected in its trajectory by the hand of Saint-Etienne player no. 18. The referee perceives the movement of the arm towards the ball in the penalty area, but not the contact between the hand and the ball: he therefore does not whistle the foul. The video referee assistance analyzes the situation and offers the referee a view at the side of the pitch in order to reconsider the decision.
Analysis of the Arbitration Department
Contact between the hand and the ball is proven, in an arm position which artificially increases the surface covered by the body. Unequivocally, the defender deliberately attempts to deflect the ball from its initial trajectory, even though the ball was clearly heading towards the goal and a clear opportunity to score a goal existed, with the goalkeeper not appearing capable of intercepting the ball. . In this case, the Laws of the Game specify “ that a player who prevents the opposing team from scoring or annihilates a clear scoring opportunity by committing deliberate handball (…) must be excluded regardless of the location of the fault”. This is the reason why the fieldside viewing was relevant to correct the initial decision, with the expected exclusion of the offender and the resumption of play with a penalty.
Lyon – Nice
In his penalty area, the Lyon defender no. 55, without playing the ball, surrounds the shoulders of the Nice player no. 29 with his left arm then his right arm, which prevents the latter from being able to play the ball he controlled (48th). Additionally, when leaning on the attacker, the defender steps on the left foot of the attacker. The referee decides to let the game continue. At the next stoppage of play, a fieldside viewing is initiated by the central referee, who decides not to modify his initial decision.
Analysis of the Arbitration Department
The footage shows the defender holding the attacker back, with a clear girdling of one arm, then both, and a lack of interest in the ball. The slight sole on the attacker’s left foot cannot in itself justify a penalty. The intervention of the defender does not allow the attacker to continue his action after control of the ball, and constitutes a fault within the meaning of Law 12. A penalty was therefore expected following the viewing at the edge of the field, as well as a warning to the offender for unsportsmanlike behavior.
Senegal
