In the video .. Barcelona describes the "mouse" as a witness, not a need ... Classico land on a hot plate

Ahmed al-Sibai

Anger, protest and attack on the arbitration, phrases that summarize the situation of Barcelona and the Catalan press after the team's match yesterday against its host Real Sociedad in LaLiga, and the reasons for this anger are due to the belief that Barça believed that the ruling of the match deprived him of a clear penalty kick after an error on Gerard Pique within the area of ​​the landowners.

This anger has heated - according to the "Marca" newspaper in Madrid - the atmosphere before the Spanish football club Clasico next Wednesday in "Camp Nou", which will play on a "hot arbitration tin".

She added that Barca formally complained about video technology in Anoeta (the stronghold of Sociedad) with a letter to the president of the Football Association, and Real Madrid had objected to the appointment of referee Hernandez to lead the El Clásico.

In the last minute of stoppage time in the match, which ended in a 2-2 draw, Spanish defender Diego Llorente Pique pulled his shirt inside the penalty area, but referee Alberto Rojas ordered a follow-up in the absence of interference by referee Gail Manzano’s technique at a time Rojas awarded a penalty kick with the help of "the mouse" to Sociedad after Busquets Llorente tightened himself, from which Mikel Uriazpal scored the first goal for his team.

However, more than one arbitration expert in Spain considered that the referee Rojas had to give Pique a penalty kick, justifying that the judgment, as long as the former was calculated, he should award the other.

Oliver Andokhar, the arbitration expert at Marca, explained that the photo showed that Llorente had pulled Pique and had made a mistake that required Pique be awarded a penalty. "If you give a penalty to Sociedad in the first half, you must give the other one to Barcelona," he added,

In the same context, Ituraldi Gonzalez, an arbitration expert in Radio "Cadena Ser" revealed that Rojas did not count a penalty for Pique because he did not see this case because "the players ' bodies covered the vision of the referee ... and the referees of the mouse technology were supposed to intervene in a situation where the error was not clear To rule the square, the mouse should have given the referee the opportunity to see the penalty kick, and this was not a clear mistake, so I admit that the mouse's technology did not interfere.

This is at the level of arbitration experts, but most of the newspapers attacked the rulers until they reached the point of describing what happened "with the scandal of the mouse" according to the newspaper "Sport" and "theft of the Classico" according to "Mondo Deportivo".

"Marca" explained that "it is very understandable that Barca's anger at the arbitration yesterday in Anoeta, because it is unreasonable for the video technique to at least not review the tensile movement on Pique, which is crystal clear, regardless of whether the referee decides on a penalty or not, the important thing To review the situation. "

Sports journalist Helena Condes, who is close to Barca, wrote that the latter "is very angry at the harm that the video technology that Barca has always defended, and there will be an official complaint from Bartomeo to the Football Association to provide explanations about what happened in Anoeta."

Radio "Cadena Ser" quoted its sources in the federation as "Barca has the right to complain, and it will be taken care of, just as the federation does with all the complaints of other clubs."

The debate between Barca and the mouse is not new, as the newspaper "AS" turned back to remember that "the mouse" entered four times in the Barca games in LaLiga this season, and no decision was in favor of Valverde's team.

Even when the players went out of their way and asked why the penalty was not awarded to Pique, the jury said it would file a complaint to the Competitions Committee against Busquets, against the backdrop of his statement in which he said, "The referee saw the penalty and did not count it."

The jury concluded that no player can make such a statement.