Felice Mazzu expressed his dissatisfaction after the equalizing goal canceled by VAR for an offside position during the match between Standard and Sint-Truiden. Here is what the regulations say on this subject so you can form your own opinion.
This is the phase that will be talked about this weekend in Belgian football. During the meeting between Standard and Sint-Truiden, while the visitors were putting pressure on Liégeois to come back to the score at the end of the match, Bertaccini stole the ball from the feet of the Rouche goalkeeper before pushing it into the back of the net.
After VAR intervention, the goal was finally canceled for an offside position on the part of the top scorer in our championship. If there is no doubt about the illicit position of the attacker at the start of the ball, some believe that Epolo, by trying to control the leather of the foot instead of capturing it with his hands, initiates a new action.
Others, on the other hand, share the opinion that Bertaccini takes advantage of his position to press the opposing goalkeeper. Felice Mazzù has chosen her side, and pleads for the first option. “It’s quite simple, the rules are clear. Adriano is offside on the first ball, no one touches the ball. It goes to the goalkeeper who has the possibility of taking it with his hands since it is not given by a Standard player. He decides to do a check and take it with his feet. He misses his control, the ball is hit. Adriano at this moment is 5 meters away, it’s a second action“, railed the Trudonnaire coach at the DAZN microphone after the final whistle.
“So today we are robbed by one point“, adds former coach Carolo.
What does the regulation say?
On this subject, the regulations say that a player “who is deliberately given a ball by an opponent is not considered to gain any advantage from his position, except in the case of a deliberate save by an opponent“. The regulations then specify the notion of “deliberately played ball” as “a situation where the ball is within playing distance and a player tries to: – pass the ball to a teammate – gain possession of the ball – clear the ball“.
“Regardless of the outcome of the pass, attempt to gain possession of the ball or clearance by the player in control of the ball, the player has performed a deliberate action“, we can then read.
The question is therefore whether or not Epolo had control of the ball. And in this case, the rules are more open to interpretation.
“The following criteria may make it possible, depending on the case, to establish that a player had control of the ball and that, therefore, it can be considered that he carried out a deliberate action:
- the ball had traveled a certain distance and the player could see it clearly
- the ball was not moving quickly
- the direction of the ball was predictable
- the player had time to organize his movements, that is to say that it was neither a reflex intervention nor a movement leading to control, even limited, of the ball
- a ground ball is easier to play than an air ball“
Finally, let us point out that the notion of rescue implies that the ball must go towards the goal, which was not the case here.
Mazzu goal canceled standard Saint-Trond regulation
