PSG – Newcastle's VAR Controversy
Image: Getty Images
Few moments stir up as much debate and controversy as penalty decisions, especially when they occur in critical moments of a game. One such instance that grabbed headlines involved PSG being awarded a late penalty after 8 minutes of injury time against Newcastle United.
The decision sparked a heated discussion about the current interpretations of FIFA rules regarding handling offenses, and it even prompted the involvement of a renowned referee Pierluigi Collina to shed light on the matter.
The Incident
The controversy unfolded when PSG was awarded a penalty in the dying moments of the game. The incident led to a call for an expert opinion, and that's where Collina, a respected referee with experience in officiating FIFA World Cup finals, was invited to analyze the situation. His task was clear: to explain why she believed the penalty decision was either justified or not based on the existing rules.
Image: Getty Images
The FIFA Interpretation
Collina began by stating that, in his view, the decision to award a penalty was consistent with current FIFA interpretations. He directed viewers' attention to a specific moment in the incident – the extended left arm of the defending player, which created a barrier. According to his explanation, once this barrier is established, any subsequent deflection is no longer part of the interpretation. This interpretation aligns with FIFA's guidelines on handling offenses.
However, Collina acknowledged that this interpretation has been met with considerable resistance and controversy in the football community. Many players, supporters, and even referees have expressed their dissatisfaction with how handling offenses are currently being applied.
The Natural Running Motion
One major point of contention in handling offenses is the concept of "natural running motion." In the incident in question, the defending player's arm was extended, but he was also in the process of moving and trying to defend. The argument against awarding a penalty centers on the idea that players cannot control their bodies to the extent that they can avoid all contact with the ball, especially when in motion.
The discussion revolves around challenges posed by the term "natural." It’s pointed out that interpretations should strive to be more objective and less subjective. The word "natural" has created a grey area that has resulted in harsh decisions, much to the frustration of players, fans, and referees alike.
Image: Getty Images
Changes on the Horizon
The International Football Advisory Board (IFAB), the body responsible for overseeing and amending the laws of the game, had been discussing the issue of handling offenses. IFAB had recognized the need for a more balanced and objective approach to the interpretation and application of these rules.
It's being hinted at the possibility of changes in the near future. It’s speculated that next season might bring about a different interpretation of handling offenses, potentially reintroducing elements such as "natural running motion" and "proximity" to the analysis. These changes could lead to fewer controversial decisions like the one that had sparked the discussion.
The controversial penalty decision in the PSG match served as a catalyst for a deeper examination of the current state of handling offenses in football. Collina’s expert analysis shed light on the complexities surrounding the issue, particularly the challenges posed by the term "natural" and the need for more objectivity.
As football's governing bodies continue to discuss and evolve the rules of the game, it remains to be seen how the handling offenses will be interpreted in the future. If the insights are any indication, we might witness changes that aim to strike a balance between fairness and the integrity of the game. For now, football enthusiasts eagerly await the next season to see if penalties like the one in question become a thing of the past.
