He VAR conceded the objective of Bartra despite giving it with the hand Alex Moreno within the earlier play. Based on the laws all offensive arms that finish in objective have to be signaled and annulled. The massive distinction is that the penalty play of Lenglet on Varane The play didn’t finish in objective. On this play, the journalist Isacc Fouto has not manifested as a result of it contradicts his standards of the earlier week.
The journalist of the Cope chain knowledgeable on arbitration points once more defended what’s indefensible. The journalist excuses himself in that the penalty of the seize on Varane it’s a penalty provided that the referee sees it reside and on the penalty of Lenglet about Varane retrieves a picture of an alleged hand of Benzema earlier.
The journalist has assumed the function of being the voice of the arbitrators within the media. It has sources within the Committee Technical and intensive data in regards to the laws. On the day prior to this once more, he wished to exit to the referees displaying how Hernandez Hernandez he did his job effectively (It's ridiculous: Fouto tried to defend the referee after the theft of Madrid).
The controversy has arisen when on at the present time, the Betis managed to attain a objective from Bartra when the earlier play Alex Brown He performed together with his hand and the play was validated. This cancels the factors of the journalist who mentioned that the penalty of Actual Madrid It shouldn’t be identified. The play of Traditional to provide it extra energy didn’t finish in objective so VAR I shouldn’t have re-arbitrated that play however solely have a look at the penalty.
On this play, the Isaac Fouto It has not manifested itself as a result of it contradicts its standards. This explains the double normal that the journalist applies when a play can hurt the Actual Madrid or when the performs embrace another group. As well as, the play of Villamarín It could be badly arbitrated in keeping with the factors of the journalist.