National Athletic Secures Late Draw Amidst VAR Controversy
In a dramatic finish to matchday 16 of the Colombian League, National Athletic snatched a crucial draw against Deportivo Pasto thanks to a last-minute penalty. The spot-kick, converted by jorman Campuzano, stemmed from a contentious foul called on Pasto goalkeeper Victor Cabezas against National’s Facundo Batista.
The incident,which occurred in the dying moments of the match,sparked immediate debate. Cabezas, in an attempt to intercept an aerial ball, collided with the Uruguayan forward.Initially, referee Wilmar Montaño waved away appeals for a penalty. However, a VAR review, initiated by VAR official Lisandro Castillo, led to the decision being overturned.
The VAR audio, released following the match, reveals the rationale behind the penalty call. Commentary during the review highlighted an “impetuous manner” of the challenge, emphasizing that “the goalkeeper is not exempt from infractions in the way he competes for the ball.” The analysis suggested that the goalkeeper’s movements were not consistent with a normal contest for possession.
VAR referee Lisandro Castillo was unequivocal in his assessment. I see that player 12 does not play the ball, he jumps adn hits it with his knee in the face. He made a reckless blow with his leg. Penalty kick, ready,
castillo stated, urging the on-field referee to review the play and recommending a penalty.
Upon reviewing the footage, referee Wilmar Montaño agreed with the VAR’s assessment, acknowledging a significant discrepancy between his initial on-field perception and what the video replay showed. Very different from what I saw, yes sir. Yes,he comes out and hits his knee completely in the back,its not in the head,but it is indeed in the back. I have a penalty kick with a yellow card,
Montaño concluded.
This wasn’t the only moment of contention in the match. In the 61st minute, a handball by a Pasto defender inside the penalty area, following a cross from national’s William Tesillo, went uncalled. Instead,an offside was signaled against Tesillo,a decision that left many observers questioning the officiating.
Potential areas for Further Investigation:
- consistency in VAR Interpretations: This incident raises questions about the consistency of VAR’s request in similar situations across different leagues and matches. How do referees and VAR officials interpret “reckless” challenges when goalkeepers are involved in aerial duels?
- Impact of VAR on Referee Autonomy: The scenario where the on-field referee admits the VAR showed him something “very different” from his initial view prompts discussion about the balance between on-field judgment and VAR intervention.
- Offside Technology and Human Error: The earlier offside call that benefited Pasto warrants a closer look at the accuracy and potential for human error in offside decisions,even with technological assistance.
Real-World Analogy: For American sports fans, this situation might be akin to a controversial pass interference call in a crucial NFL game that is overturned after a replay review, or a questionable foul called in the final seconds of an NBA game that decides the outcome. The debate over whether the correct call was made, and the role of technology in that decision, is a familiar narrative.
Counterargument: Some might argue that the VAR’s intervention was precisely what the technology is designed for – to correct clear and obvious errors on the field. They would contend that if the goalkeeper made a dangerous or illegal challenge,regardless of intent,a penalty is the correct outcome. However, the counterpoint is the subjective nature of “reckless” and the potential for VAR to overrule on-field officials based on interpretations that may not always align with the spirit of the game.
