Sunday evening, Olympique de Marseille won an important victory against AS Monaco at the Vélodrome, allowing the Phocéens to maintain their third place before the end-of-year holidays. A success obtained thanks to a goal from Mason Greenwood, but which caused a lot of debate, especially after the goal from Lamine Camara, ultimately refused because of a placement by Folarin Balogun, while being in an offside position. Which caused great anger in the Monegasque ranks at the end of the meeting.
“We watched the images of the disallowed goal in the locker room and even us, until now, we don’t understand. We can’t do anything about it, it’s the referees who decide.”declared the midfielder after his disallowed goal, highlighting the incomprehension of the locker room. This Monday, the Monegasques may have reason to be annoyed, since the FFF Refereeing Department has, more or less, ruled François Letexier wrong. In his press releaseshe indicates “that the assistant referee then decides to raise his flag because he considers that attacker no. 9 impacted the ability of Marseille defender no. 21 to play the ball at the start of the action”on the goal refused in the 51st minute.
Not a “manifest error”, according to the DTN
In its analysis, the DTN explains that this situation “falls into a “gray zone” insofar as several interpretation criteria exist”specifying that given the placement of the players, “it is not clearly wrong to consider that the latter’s position influenced the defender’s ability to play the ball. Thus, the decision to cancel the goal may not be considered a “manifest error” within the meaning of the video assistance protocol, even if that of granting the goal could also have naturally been considered.. As a reminder, VAR is only supposed to intervene in the event of a manifest error.
Another action mentioned: a shot from striker Mason Greenwood at the edge of the area blocked by two Monegasque players including the hand of Mohamed Salisu in the area. The referee, who allowed the game to continue after consulting the VAR, made the right decision, according to the DTN. The possible contact between the ball and the hand of defender no. 22 in an illegal position was correctly analyzed (…) Being unable to confirm the existence of this contact by excluding the slightest doubt, the video referee rightly decided not to intervene further”*.
Pub. the
– UPDATE
