The afternoon’s most unsettled chapter was written not only by the goals, but by the review room. Referee Marco Di Bello and VAR official Paterna came under severe scrutiny after a sequence of decisions involving Liberali’s validated goal, Pongracic’s disallowed equaliser and a handball appeal against the same defender.
A contested attacking phase before Liberali’s goal
- Shortly before the decisive attacking move, Di Bello had stopped play for what was judged a foul by Pedro Gonçalves on Caqueret, although the challenge itself was viewed as unconvincing.
- In the attacking phase that led to Liberali scoring, Luis Milla was involved in a challenge with Pedro Gonçalves. The defender was said to have held him across the chest, placed a leg over his and pressed down on his left calf.
- Despite that contact, the goal stood. The assessment of the incident was that the foul was sufficiently apparent to require intervention, making the decision to validate the goal difficult to accept.
The technology problem behind Pongracic’s disallowed 2-2
The greater controversy arrived with Pongracic’s would-be 2-2. The review took a long time, with the semi-automated offside technology unavailable. Officials instead used Cross AIR 3D to establish the offside line.
- The semi-automated system is described as having a margin of error of around three to five centimetres, helped by dedicated cameras capable of 100 frames per second.
- Cross AIR 3D, using different cameras, is considered less precise over very short distances, with an estimated tolerance closer to 15 centimetres.
- The decision ultimately rested on Ndour’s foot being offside. Ndour was considered to be in an offside position, though he was not deemed to have interfered with play.
- Given the wider margin of uncertainty offered by the replacement system, there was concern that the on-field decision might have been the more prudent outcome under VAR protocol, rather than overturning it on a marginal measurement.
The issue was not whether Ndour had been ahead of the defensive line, but whether the available technology could deliver the level of certainty needed to erase a goal on such a fine call.
No penalty for the later handball appeal
There was also a handball check when Dragusin’s flick touched Pongracic’s right hand. The ball arrived unexpectedly and the contact was not considered punishable, so no penalty was awarded.
The overall verdict on Di Bello’s display was insufficient. Paterna’s work in the VAR room was also judged poorly, particularly because of the handling of the two goal incidents and the reliance on a less accurate offside tool for a decision measured in centimetres.
