Fiorentina’s defeat to Como has developed into a wider dispute over two first-half decisions at the Franchi, with the Tuscan club saying the explanations received from Serie A have not resolved its concerns.
A 3-1 defeat and two disputed moments
Como left Florence with a 3-1 victory, but Fiorentina’s focus has remained on incidents that shaped the opening half. The club initially requested formal clarification from Serie A and has now issued a further statement after receiving a response.
- Como took the lead through Liberali. Fiorentina believe VAR should have reviewed a possible foul by Milla on Pedro Gonçalves at the start of the move.
- Fiorentina later had what would have been an equalising goal, for 2-2, ruled out against Marin Pongracic for offside.
- Serie A explained that the semi-automated offside system suffered a technical problem during the Pongracic incident.
- Officials therefore used the conventional manual line-drawing process, a procedure permitted under FIFA regulations.
Fiorentina seek fuller clarification
The Viola have not accepted that account as sufficient. Their main objection is that the response did not explain why the opening goal was not reviewed, while they also want clearer material concerning the offside call against Croatian defender Pongracic.
In its latest statement, Fiorentina said it acknowledged Serie A’s reply but considered the counter-arguments “neither satisfactory nor complete”. The club said the explanation did not clarify the failure to conduct a VAR review before Como’s first goal and did not provide moving video footage capable of definitively demonstrating the objectivity of the offside decision.
Fiorentina are also seeking further evidence, including recordings of communications between the match referee and the VAR room.
The club’s next step
The dispute has moved beyond the result itself and into the question of confidence in the competition’s refereeing procedures. Fiorentina said it would continue approaching the relevant sporting authorities in pursuit of the explanations it believes are necessary.
The club added that it wanted final clarity on what it described as serious situations and episodes which risk damaging “the credibility of the whole system”.
