It is being the season of the announcements. Each arbitration controversy ends in a press release where the offense is denounced. It is the usual resource and the one that has been used in the latest controversy. The one experienced in Griezmann’s second goal in Espanyol – Atlético, authorized after the VAR review. A bit of a ghost against a team that ended up going back to 3-3, but who needed victory in their fight to avoid relegation.
After several minutes of review, part of the VOR room, González González told Melero López to concede the goal after a sequence that he checked. The problem would have been avoided with the automatic goal detection system that sends a warning to the referee when the ball completely crosses the line. A method that was used, for example, in the World Cup.
The VAR does not have images for Espanyol
Espanyol, penultimate ranked with 35 points, rejected the decision and asked Clos Gómez, responsible for the VAR, the images that were used to make the decision. However, in a statement, the Catalan team assures that they have not received any video evidence and they will not receive it in the future.
For this reason they ask for the annulment of the match against Atlético. The group alleges that there was “a party adulteration” and he takes as an example of the re-arbitration that he asks for what happened with Vinicius. Competition removed the red from the Brazilian that he saw in Mestalla after stating that the VAR images were “biased”.
“This week a precedent has been established”
“This week a precedent has been established that sets a new paradigm in the administration of sports justice in Spanish football, when the Competition Committee intervenes in previously arbitrated decisions in the field and in the VAR”, recalls Espanyol in its statement.
For all this, Espanyol considers “their rights violated, seriously harmed”, so the entity will proceed to “challenge the disputed match and request, therefore, that they proceed to agree on its annulment”. Finally, the blue and white club, “in defense of its legitimate interests”, studies additional legal actions “for the possible patrimonial damage derived from this action”referring, without citing it, to the descent.