The adjudication committee of the Chinese Football Association determined that the penalty kick in the battle between Beijing and Zhejiang was a misjudgment

The official website of Beijing Youth Daily

2024-04-30 22:45Posted on the official account of Beijing Beiqing.com

On the evening of April 29, the evaluation team of the referee committee of the Chinese Football Association held the fifth (20240429) referee evaluation work of this season. According to the club's appeal opinions, a total of 10 precedents from the Chinese Super League, China League A, China B and Women's Super League were reviewed in this issue.

The review team found that the final penalty was correct in 6 cases and the final penalty was wrong in 4 cases. The specific results were announced on the evening of the 30th through the official website of the Chinese Football Association. The 10 cases show that there were 4 referee errors, 1 assistant referee error, and 2 VAR intervention errors. What is noteworthy is that the evaluation team determined that during the 8th round of the Chinese Super League, during the Zhejiang team's home match against the Guoan team, the referee on duty Dai Yige in the 82nd minute of the game was wrongly judged according to the VAR referee team's prompts, and the VAR intervention was wrong. The VAR referee on duty is Ma Ning, an international-level referee who has presided over the Asian Cup final. It can be seen that for the technical errors of the "Golden Whistle", the referee management department of the Chinese Football Association does not protect the shortcomings of error correction.

The Chinese Football Association wrote in the official announcement: "The council still adopts the form of video conference, inviting the personnel of the discipline inspection and supervision team of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection in the General Administration of Sports and representatives of authoritative media to attend the meeting, and the members of the review group are combined to discuss and express their opinions individually to draw the conclusion of the review." ”

Among them, there are two precedents involving the Chinese Super League, case 1: in the 8th round of the Chinese Super League, Zhejiang VS Beijing Guoan, in the 82nd minute of the game, when the No. 45 player of the Zhejiang team and the No. 17 player of the Beijing Guoan team were scrambling in the latter's penalty area, the two sides made physical contact and fell to the ground. The referee did not give a foul, VAR intervened, and after the referee was on the scene to review it, he changed the foul to the No. 17 player of the Beijing Guoan team and awarded a penalty.

Regarding this precedent, the majority of the members of the review group held that the No. 45 player of the Zhejiang team committed a foul first during the scramble, and the subsequent actions of the No. 17 player of the Beijing Guoan team should not be regarded as a foul, and the referee's decision to change the penalty was wrong, and the VAR intervention was wrong.

Case 2: In the 8th round of the Chinese Super League, Shanghai Port VS Shanghai Shenhua, in the 90+5th minute of the game, the No. 20 player of the Shanghai Shenhua team was in an offside position and made a move to dodge the incoming ball when his teammates shot. After the ball hit the goal, the first assistant referee raised the flag and awarded an offside foul, and the referee ruled that the goal was invalid. VAR intervened and the referee upheld the decision to disallow the offside foul after reviewing it on the field.

In this case, the members of the review team unanimously agreed that the No. 20 player of Shanghai Shenhua team was in an offside position when his teammate's shot touched the ball, and the action of dodging the ball was an obvious act that affected the opponent's goalkeeper's ability to handle the ball, which constituted an offside foul interfering with the opposing team, and the first assistant referee's offside decision was correct, the referee's decision to invalidate the goal and uphold the penalty after reviewing was correct, and the VAR intervention was wrong.

Text/Beijing Youth Daily reporter Xiao Yun

Editor/Xu Zhao

View original image 35K

• 

•