The technical errors of the video assistant referee (Var) returned to the fore again in the match between Juventus and Lyon in the second leg of the Champions League quarter-finals on Friday, in which two penalties were awarded, and they were described in the European press as "fake".

And after the mouse was repeatedly accused of taking fake penalties for Juventus in the Italian League, he caused the team to leave the European Championship final price despite its 2-1 home victory over Lyon, who won at home in the first leg 1-0, and benefited from the preference rule by scoring outside his stadium. .

Where German referee Felix Zuire awarded a controversial penalty kick, from which Memphis Depay scored the goal for Lyon in the 12th minute, and of course the mouse supported the decision, and his calculation also supported a controversial penalty kick, which Juventus tied in the 43rd minute through his Portuguese star Cristiano Ronaldo, who scored the goal. The second one too, but it didn't save Juve from coming out.

This is the penalty juventus conceded I'm crying this is so funny 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭 I love this game pic.twitter.com/YVWfnkwKHd

- conte fan (@skinniar) August 7, 2020

The Lyon penalty kick misses any of the elements of the violation, in a way that may make its calculation an arbitration crime, because the arbitration rule says that if the player succeeds in playing the ball first and then collides with the opponent within the framework of normal movement, there is no violation even if the opponent falls, which is exactly what happened in the arbitration case that I do not know on what basis the referee calculated it and supported it by the desert.

As for the second penalty kick, which many European press reports mentioned that the referee calculated to fix his first mistake, there is no offense in it even though the defender's arm has already touched the ball, because the Football Law (Article 12 fouls and misconduct) states that intentional handball is a violation. For defenders and setting 4 considerations that determine intentional or not.

Hell of a makeup penalty call in the Juventus-Lyon game. Nonsense. pic.twitter.com/OY1v3ihgVc

- Henry Bushnell (@HenryBushnell) August 7, 2020

And if we apply the considerations of intentional touching the hand of the Leon defender, who was standing in the wall when taking the free kick, which is the distance, the speed of the ball and the movement of the hand, and was the hand that headed for the ball or the ball that went to it? We find that all of them are not available in the case, as the ball is fast and the distance is relatively close and the hand is attached to the player's chest, which is a natural movement when jumping up, and the ball is the one that went to his hand and his hand did not go to it.

Also, the player does not have to put his hand to cut the ball that his chest was enough to cut without his hand, all of which confirms what the European press said was a fake penalty.

The question that arises is: If the referee who makes his decision from one scene in a second has made a mistake, then why does he support the wrong fare judgment, when he has several viewing angles and a long time that may extend for more than a minute to discuss the arbitration case and give the correct decision ?!
______________________

  • A former international ruling