Iturralde: No Penalty for Vinicius – Referee Analysis

Real Madrid left Mendizorroza with a victory, but with a controversy at the center of the refereeing debate. The penalty not awarded to Vinicius in the Alavés-Real Madrid game reopened the club’s anger with the referees, because they understand that it is inexplicable that it was not called. From the Real Madrid bench, Xabi Alonso chose his words carefully, although he did not hide his opinion. “I’m talking about the action, not the referee. It seems like a clear penalty to me. Vini is going fast and there is contact. I’m surprised that it doesn’t go to the VAR. That said, it doesn’t surprise us,” said the coach. The final phrase, said with all the intention. González Fuertes, a referee critical of Real Madrid, was on the VAR

Lack of judgment

Iturralde González, former international referee and analyst on Cadena SER, spoke of consistency. “The question is the criteria and the consistency in the criteria, if they enter Vigo on the same day, they must enter here,” he said, directly comparing Vinicius’ action in Vitoria with the penalty that was awarded in favor of Athletic Club a few hours before.. For Iturralde, the problem is not that an action is interpretable, but that two very similar actions receive different responses from the VAR.

The reference is clear. In the match played in Vigo, Hernández Hernández awarded a penalty after Carreira made contact with Iñaki Williams. The VAR intervened, called the referee to the monitor and, after reviewing the play, considered that the contact was sufficient to impose the maximum penalty. A decision that passed without excessive noise, framed within that gray terrain in which football has been moving for years: that of sufficient contact, intensity and voluntariness.

However, that same pattern was not repeated in Mendizorroza. In the action starring Vinicius, the Brazilian faces at speed, enters the area and falls after contact on the leg. The on-field referee let it continue and the VAR did not intervene. For Iturralde, the similarity is evident. “There was a play in Vigo today that for me is Iñaki’s turn, but he lets himself fall and this is the same one,” he insisted. The key is not so much whether Vinicius exaggerates or not, but rather why one action is reviewed and the other is not..

The sense of comparative grievance is reinforced by a third recent precedent: Rodrygo’s play in Girona-Real Madrid. Then, in a very similar action, the VAR did not intervene either. Iturralde anticipated it even before the regulatory review time in Vitoria ended: “It’s his turn, it’s very similar to Rodrygo’s in Girona, he’s not going to call him.”

clear trip

More than a prediction, it sounded like a confirmation of how the criterion is being applied in certain contexts.

Álvaro Benito, former Real Madrid player and television analyst, introduced a relevant technical nuance. In his opinion, there is even more tripping in Vinicius’s action than in Rodrygo’s. “It seems to me that there is more tripping than in Rodrygo’s“, he stated. It is not a minor comment, because it shifts the debate from the emotional to the purely footballing terrain: it is not just about similar contacts, but about an action that, comparatively, could further justify the intervention of the VAR.

All this feeds a dangerous perception for the arbitration system: that of an unequal application of the regulations. The Technical Committee of Referees reviews this type of actions weekly, something common this season, but Iturralde demands something more than an internal analysis. Ask for a public and concrete explanation. “At this time of review, tell me why it is reported in Vigo and not here, when it is the same or very similar.”