On May 10, Beijing time, the first leg of the Champions League semifinals, Manchester City drew 1-1 away at Real Madrid, but De Bruyne's equalizing goal was controversial, and we may wish to interpret it here.
THE FACTS: The ball is indeed out of bounds
First, we need to confirm a fact. When B saves the ball on the right wing, is the ball out of bounds?
VAR doesn't tell us the answer, but from beIN Sports' 3D technical analysis it can be concluded that the ball is indeed out of bounds.
Therefore, the point of controversy is not whether it is out of bounds, but in the process later: after the B save, Stones won the ball and distributed it to De Bruyne; De Bruyne's cross, blocked by Modric;
Camavinga crossed the ball forward after winning the ball, which was tackled by Rodri, Grealish took the ball and crossed, Gundogan gave the ball to De Bruyne and Tintin scored from distance outside the box.
Oppose: Should be invalid
Wenger, former Arsenal boss and FIFA's head of global development, said: "VAR should have checked the ball, in this case it had to be involved, and when the B seat touched the ball, it was out of bounds. ”
Real Madrid boss Carlo Ancelotti also complained: "De Bruyne scored before the ball went out of bounds, yes. I don't think the referee is very attentive. This is a situation that VAR must control. In addition, before the attack, it was clearly a corner kick. The referee also awarded me a yellow card. I told him that cards should be given to people on the field, not to those on the sidelines. ”
In their opinion, the whole process from the B save to Kevin De Bruyne's goal is consistent, so the VAR is traceable.
So the question arises: can VAR be reviewed out of bounds? According to FIFA rules, VAR intervenes in four situations: goals, penalties, direct red cards, penalties, and penalties, but this is only the general situation.
Specifically, the 2022-2023 new version of the Football Competition Rules clearly states that VAR can intervene if there is a "clear and obvious error" or "serious incident that has been missed", one of which Chinese translates to: "The ball has left the playing field before the goal is scored".
The original English text is "ball out of play prior to the goal", which directly translates to "the ball leaves the playing field", which does not seem to be entirely appropriate, but "the ball leaves the field" is indeed a kind of "ball out of play".
So, if it is seen as an attacking process, then VAR can intervene in the ball out of bounds, and Manchester City's goal should be invalidated.
Square: Should work
But the other side believes that when De Bruyne's pass is cut off and Camavin adds the ball, Manchester City's attack is over, and it is Real Madrid's turn to attack.
It's just that Camavinga made a mistake himself, and after Manchester City broke the ball, a new attacking round has been started - so VAR should not be traced back to the last attacking round, even if the ball is out of bounds, it has nothing to do with De Bruyne's goal.
However, in fact, there is no explicit provision on VAR retroactivity in the "Football Competition Rules", but logically speaking, "unlimited retrospectiveness" is indeed unacceptable to fans, and the impact on the game itself is also great.
However, there is a clause in it: "The rules of the competition do not allow the decision to restart (corners, out-of-bounds, etc.) after the game has resumed, so VAR cannot review it." ”
That is, if a corner kick or out-of-bounds kick attacks and ultimately results in a goal, VAR cannot examine whether the corner or out-of-bounds kick should be penalized. So, if there is no out-of-bounds ball and the game is not "restarted", can VAR review it? It is not said in the rules.