Barcelona's confrontation with Napoli, in the final eighth round of the UEFA Champions League, witnessed a great arbitration controversy and many interventions from the video assistant referee (FAR) that affected the outcome of the match, which Barcelona won 3-1.

If we added the time at which the match stopped to review the mouse, we would find it about ten minutes, and unfortunately, not all decisions were correct despite this long time that spoiled the match.

The mouse's interference and mistakes began in the tenth minute after French defender Clemont Lingley scored the first goal for Barcelona with a header from a corner kick, and it became clear from the replays that the player had committed a payment violation against the Napoli defender who was observing him and some believed that the mouse would cancel the "incorrect" goal, but after about two minutes Strangely confirmed target.

Lenglet got rewarded over a clear push while Ronaldo and Dybala got denied.

Undeserved EXIT for Ronaldo💔 pic.twitter.com/aH2EmB7Y38

- Fan🇵🇹🐐 (@ c7inmydna) August 9, 2020

Then Argentine Lionel Messi, the Barcelona star, scored two goals, the first in the 23rd minute, and the referee counted it. In the 32nd minute, the second came and the mouse canceled it because the ball rebounded from Messi's chest and touched his left hand just before scoring the goal, and although it was not intentional, the decision to cancel the goal is constructively correct. The amendment made to Article 12 of the Football Law (Fouls and Misconduct) last year counting any ball that touches the striker's hand or arm that results in a goal or goal opportunity, regardless of whether intentional or not.

Before the end of the first half, the mouse intervened again, but Turkish international referee Konet Shakir had to go to the mouse screen to see the situation himself - which reflects their disagreement over it and the failure to prove the fugitive - when Messi was injured as a result of his dangerous interference with the Senegalese defender of Napoli Coulibaly.

The referee discussed with the mouse referees for about four minutes during Messi's treatment before he went to the screen and made his decision to count a completely incorrect penalty kick in favor of Messi, who should have been counted against him as an indirect violation because he played in a dangerous manner that exposed him with Coulibaly to severe injury.

Aynı Cüneyt Çakır, iki farklı karar.

2017'de Janssen'in nizami golü iptal edilirken 2020'de Messi penaltı kazanıyor. pic.twitter.com/Xuy8LX2Fmf

- Kocamanizm 🖋 (@kocamanizm) August 8, 2020

In order to convince you of my point of view, I ask a question: If the ball is in the air above the players' heads and Coulibaly tried to play it with his head but Messi intervened and tried to extract it with his foot, then what is the referee's decision? Of course, an indirect free kick is considered a dangerous game as stipulated by law, and is there more dangerous than Messi? Note that Coulibaly did not even see him and was aiming the ball and the Argentine star was the one who interfered from the back and played it to aim Coulibaly unintentionally at his foot instead of the ball.

European Champions League

In Messi's glow night ... Barcelona defeat Napoli and reach the Champions League quarter-finals

🎬 Don't miss the match summary and goals 👇 # BarcaNapoli #beINUCL #UCL https://t.co/wdv9fjjrks

- beIN SPORTS (@beINSPORTS) August 8, 2020

The referee calculated another penalty kick for Napoli, which is indisputable at the time, instead of being lost for the exciting first half, and the mouse intervention was correct this time as he confirmed the decision.

  • A former international ruling