According to the official website of the Chinese Football Association, on the evening of April 16, the evaluation team of the referee committee of the Chinese Football Association held the third (20240416) referee review of this season, supporting 7 referee judgments and determining a Chinese Super League referee misjudgment. Of the eight precedents reviewed in this review, seven are the focus of the club's appeal. In addition, in the 4th round of the Chinese Super League, Qingdao Manatee v. Shandong Taishan had no club complaint involving VAR intervention, but it received social attention, and the Chinese Football Association believed that it was a typical precedent with clear rules and unified penalty scales, and it was also included in the case of this review to respond to social concerns.
Case 1: Qingdao Manatee VS Shandong Taishan in the 4th round of the Chinese Super League, in the 37th minute of the game, after the Shandong team scored, after VAR intervention and the referee was present to review it, it was ruled that the Shandong team obtained the ball through fouls in the offensive development stage, and the goal was invalid. The review team unanimously agreed that in the initial stage of the attack, the action of Shandong Taishan No. 7 player and Qingdao Manatee No. 10 player competing for the ball and obtaining the ball was a foul, and was in the same offensive development stage as the subsequent goal. In addition, some members of the review team believe that the No. 32 player who scored the goal of the Shandong team also committed fouls when competing with the opponent for the ball and gaining the ball.
Case 2: In the 5th round of the Chinese Super League, Shandong Taishan VS Henan Club, in the 22nd minute of the game, the No. 20 player of Henan Club made contact with the opponent's head when he jumped to compete for the ball in the air. After VAR intervention and the referee was present to review it, the No. 20 player of Henan Club was sentenced to a serious foul and a red card was shown to him. In this case, the review team unanimously agreed that the action of the No. 20 player of Henan Club was a serious foul, and after VAR intervention, the referee ruled that his decision to punish him for a serious foul and show a red card was correct.
Case 3: In the 5th round of the Chinese Super League, Shandong Taishan VS Henan Club, in the 69th minute of the game, the No. 27 player of Henan Club made contact with Shandong Taishan No. 2 player in the opponent's penalty area and fell to the ground. The referee did not award a foul and VAR did not intervene. Regarding this precedent, the review team unanimously held that the action of Shandong team No. 2 was a normal and reasonable action to compete for the position of possession, and the referee's decision not to foul on the spot was correct.
Case 4: In the 5th round of the Chinese Super League, Qingdao West Coast VS Tianjin Jinmen Tigers, in the 88th minute of the game, when the No. 10 player of Qingdao West Coast and the No. 7 player of Tianjin Jinmen Tiger competed for the ball, the legs of the two sides made contact. The referee showed a red card on the spot, VAR intervened, and the referee upheld the initial penalty after reviewing it on the spot. Regarding this precedent, the review team unanimously held that from the contact between the No. 10 player of the Qingdao team and the opposing player, his scramble was a reckless foul, not a serious foul, and a yellow card warning should be presented, the on-the-spot VAR intervention was correct, and the referee's decision to show a red card and maintain the red card after a review was wrong.
Case 5: In the 6th round of the Chinese Super League, Shenzhen Xinpeng City VS Wuhan Three Towns, in the 6th minute of the game, the No. 31 player of Shenzhen Xinpeng City made contact with the No. 19 player of Wuhan Three Towns in the penalty area, and the latter then fell to the ground. The referee did not award a foul and VAR did not intervene. Regarding this precedent, the review team unanimously agreed that the physical contact between the two sides was within the normal scope of the game, the No. 19 player of the Wuhan team fell to the ground by taking advantage of the situation, and the No. 31 player of the Shenzhen team did not foul, and the decision of the referee on the spot not to foul was correct.
Case 6: In the 6th round of the Chinese League, Dalian InBev VS Liaoning Ironman, in the 80th minute of the game, Liaoning Ironman No. 7 player took the ball into the opponent's penalty area, Dalian InBev No. 11 player tackled, and the referee did not make a foul penalty on the spot. Regarding this precedent, the majority of the members of the review group believe that from the existing video, the defender touches the ball first when tackling the ball, and then makes contact with the opposing player, which is not a foul action, and the decision of the referee on the spot not to foul is correct.
Case 7: In the 6th round of the Chinese League, Heilongjiang Bingcheng VS Jiangxi Lushan, in the 5th minute of the game, the No. 23 player of Heilongjiang Bingcheng touched the ball when intercepting the opponent's pass, and the referee ruled that it was not a handball foul, and the game continued. In response to this precedent, the Panel agreed that the existing video could not clearly show the body parts of the players in contact with the ball, as well as the position and movement of the players' arms. The majority of the members were of the view that, judging from the overall movements of the players, the referee's decision not to commit a handball foul should be upheld.
Case 8: In the 4th round of the second round of Shandong Taishan Jingangshan VS Langfang City of Glory, in the 16th minute of the game, when the No. 12 goalkeeper of the Langfang team defended the No. 46 player of the Shandong Taishan Jingangshan team outside the penalty area, the opponent's attacking player fell to the ground, and the referee ruled that the goalkeeper of the Langfang team destroyed the opponent's obvious goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO) through fouls, and showed a red card to the No. 12 goalkeeper of the Langfang team to play. In response to this precedent, the majority of the members of the review team believed that the defensive action of the No. 12 goalkeeper of the Langfang team was a foul that destroyed the opponent's obvious opportunity to score a goal, and some members pointed out that the existing video could not show the physical contact between the two sides absolutely clearly, and the referee's decision should be supported and respected, so the review team found that the decision made by the referee on the spot to show a red card on the grounds of DOGSO was correct.
The Chinese Football Association said that it will continue to uphold the principles of fairness, justice and openness, actively accept feedback and appeals from clubs, and conduct comments on key precedents and typical precedents with high social attention and conducive to unifying the penalty scale, and announce the results of the evaluation to the public, and impose internal penalties on relevant wrongful and omitted referees.
[Source: Official website of the Chinese Football Association]
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author, if there is a source error or infringement of your legitimate rights and interests, you can contact us by email, we will deal with it in a timely manner. E-mail address: [email protected]