Milan-Napoli, Massa fails to cancel Kessie’s goal

And immediately the mind went to the Atalanta-Roma episode, to the situation of Palomino-Cristante and to the goal canceled by the Goddess. But here, towards the sunset of Milan-Napoli, the dynamic is different, also and above all because in the case of Bergamo the players were standing and the Atalantino made contact (hand on the back) while Giroud is on the ground (dominated by Juan Jesus) without wanting to create or seek that moment.

INACTIVE

—

The key episode of the match takes place at 44’11 “of the second half: cross from the left by Ballo Touré, ball in full area and headed by Giroud, the ball returns to the ground and a Lobotka-Kalulu contrast deflects it towards Castillejo who receives the slip of Ghoulam with consequent movement of the ball itself in the center of the area where Kessie is. Massa concedes the goal but Di Paolo (Var) calls him back to the “Ofr”: Giroud’s offside is evident but the field of interpretation will lead to endless discussion. Massa looks and changes his mind, when the initial decision was the most correct. The French striker is in short, yes, offside but “lying” and in a situation consequential to an aerial duel and therefore not sought or created. The idea that it influences or conditions therefore seems excessive: being right on the ground, it is excessive to define participation in active action. And in all this, as instead happened by Palomino, there is no move by Giroud towards the opposing player: the slight leg movement does not seem to contrast that of Juan Jesus. So it is irrelevant. It is right that the Var intervenes – in Bergamo he wrongly decided the Var itself directly – but the final choice must be made by the referee who in this case had given the goal and then had to explain to the players, after the final whistle, that the offside he had become active. Did the episode that happened in Bergamo “influence” this dynamic in canceling the network? We will never know. Of course, we are always in the interpretative field and in the guidelines of the arbitration sector: the contact creates interference and this may have led to cancellation. Excessive, however, in this case.