Serie A’s sixth round offered a clear view of the refereeing direction for the season: the decision on the pitch remains central, while VAR is expected to step in only when an error is unmistakable. That approach produced two penalties, two trips to the monitor and several calls that will continue to divide opinion without being overturned.
The decision
The two on-field reviews came in situations considered sufficiently clear for VAR intervention. At San Siro, Inter’s Pio Esposito reached the ball before Diego Carlos, who arrived late and stood on the forward’s ankle. Bonacina initially allowed play to continue, but the review identified a clear mistake and the referee awarded Inter a penalty.
The other review arrived in Atalanta-Venezia, where Elmas caught Helgason with a dangerous challenge. The referee had first shown a yellow card, but the footage led to a review and a reassessment of the offence. It was the third on-field review of the Serie A season.
Those interventions reflect the boundary being set for VAR. The video officials are not there to replace every judgement made by the referee, nor to send an official to the screen simply because another interpretation is possible. They are expected to correct the obvious errors, such as the stamp on Esposito and Elmas’s high, forceful challenge.
The same principle explains why the penalty awarded to Napoli against Frosinone remained in place. Feliciani judged that Cittadini had brought down Højlund from behind after the Napoli forward had established position ahead of his marker. Replays may make the contact appear less striking, but they also show two touches, with the first considered decisive. Since the referee had seen and assessed the incident in real time, there was no reason for VAR to intervene.
Como-Roma provided another example. Fabbri sent off Malen following his tackle on Kaiki. The colour of the card can be debated, but the referee’s assessment took in the jump, the speed of the phase and the overall movement of both players. A freeze-frame alone cannot settle such an incident, and a monitor review would not have been welcomed under the current standard.
The consequence is that comparable-looking challenges may bring different outcomes. Context matters: pace, force, the players’ positions and the development of the move can all alter a referee’s reading. Where there is room for interpretation, VAR and the assistant VAR are expected to leave the original call intact rather than impose their own preference.
Other calls from the sixth round
Lecce-Bologna brought a less convincing sequence, even if the final outcome was correct. Pairetto initially pointed to the spot after Pessina’s challenge on Esteban, then revised the decision and awarded a free-kick outside the area because Esteban had committed an earlier foul on Casale. The prolonged holding offence took place outside the box, making the ultimate restart correct, although the shift from penalty to free-kick was avoidable.
In Lazio-Monza, Lucchesi’s dismissal was judged correct after he held back Noslin, who had moved beyond him at speed. Earlier in the match, Monza appealed for a penalty following contact between Tavares and Birindelli, but play was rightly allowed to continue.
Sassuolo-Milan also underlined the importance of judging movement rather than still images. Laurienté’s contact on Gila looked more serious when paused at the point of impact, but the challenge lacked the speed and intensity required for a red card. A booking would have been the appropriate sanction.
There were also no grounds for penalties in the contact between Van der Brempt and De Winter, or in the incident involving Caleta-Car’s arm and Gonçalo Ramos. In the latter case, the ball was travelling back towards midfield, another relevant element in the assessment.
The season’s instruction is not built on the expectation of perfect refereeing. It asks officials to read the match, make their call and carry responsibility for it. VAR remains a corrective tool for clear mistakes, rather than a mechanism for reopening every difficult decision from Sunday afternoon.
