Kyros Vassaras, president of the Central Commission of Referees, analyzed refereeing errors in Farul – FCSB and CFR Cluj – Petrolul matches, explaining whether the decisions were correct or not.

>>> Adrian Porumboyu, accusations against referee Istvan Kovac: “He is a robber. Celebrate CFR titles with champagne”

Kyros Vassaras claims Sebastian Kolcescu’s penalty at Farul – FCSB didn’t exist – Why VAR didn’t intervene

The ninth stage of the Romanian Super League was not without refereeing errors, and two games caught the attention of the president of the Central Commission of Referees, Kiros Vassaras.

He commented on the penalty conceded by FCSB in the away game against Farul Konstanz (1-0), as well as the phases during which Petrolul demanded a kick from 11 meters in the dispute with CFR Cluj (1-0).

Vassaras confirmed that the penalty awarded by Sebastian Kolcescu in the contract between Adrian Shute and Tudor Beluce should not have been awarded, but also explained the reason why the people in the VAR room could not intervene.

“The referee clearly sees this incident in the penalty area. He wrongly decides to award a penalty without a yellow card. Both players, the defender and the attacker, act differently, in the direction actually opposite to their movement.

The ball is not under their control, because unexpectedly for them it remains behind the attacker. This light contact between them cannot be considered a foul by the defender, but a normal physical contact that does not affect the attacker’s ability to attack the ball, since his direction of movement is opposite to the ball.

Football is a contact sport. The defender does not take a clear action to hinder the opponent. The VAR scrutinizes and cannot intervene because, according to the VAR protocol, there are not enough elements to overturn the referee’s decision. There is no clear and obvious error to intervene.

Nothing more can be added to the referee’s opinion on this minor contact. Both have seen the same footage and it is the referee who decides on the incidents he has seen on the pitch.

According to international and CCA guidelines, not all contacts are harmful. In this easy fall of the attacker, there is no intention to hinder the opponent. According to the KAS, this penal decision should have been avoided.” – Kiros Vassaras reported, the FRF website reports.

Furthermore, the CCA president said referee Istvan Kovac was right not to award Petrolul a 11-metre penalty after Ayeti’s contact with Pedro Justiniano.

>>> The president of the CFR Cluj, a former referee, comments on the controversial stages of the match with Petrolul Ploiesti

“In his attempt to play or clear the ball so that it is not played by the opponent, the defender makes an irregular attack, direct contact with the boot of the opponent’s foot also causes the opponent to fall with an additional movement of the other foot. .

In this case, the attacker is hindered and the correct decision should be a penalty. The referee cannot identify the contact because it is not clear to him whether the defender’s foot is behind the opponent and touching the ground or the attacker’s foot.

VAR examines the incident from different angles but cannot find the right view to properly analyze the attack. It was footage taken from behind the gate.

At the end, he analyzes the situation in the other penalty area for the absence of a foul and confirms that the entire review of all incidents has been completed, confirming all decisions on the field as correct. – he concluded.

>>> Hyke Hagi, wild reaction after FCSB beat Farul with a penalty kick