The problem is the crossbar! Yes, the goal problem of Of Maria canceled by the referee Fabbri in Juventus-Naples for a previous contact between Owned by and Lobotka was born with… the imaginary crossbar. Yes, the one that as children ideally united the two bags placed in the clearing to delimit the door. The crossbar could not be placed and so we went in spades with, of course, a series of quarrels and similar problems whenever the shot seemed a little too high. “Goal!”, “No, high!”. Here, in that backyard football for children or teenagers there were physiological, tolerable discussions and then there was no alternative. But that all this, with due proportions, continues to have the right to citizenship in professional football worth hundreds of millions of euros, now also accompanied by investments in technology for the Var (cameras, goal line clock, earphones, etc.) this does not it is more tolerable.
Var, the regulation is clear
And to say that they tried to write the regulation clearly to ensure that the application protocol of the Var was unequivocal precisely to avoid returning to the problem of the “crossbar”. But no way. We did it again despite it being written in the principles that “And Was is a match official with independent access to match footage, who can only assist the referee in the event of a “clear and obvious error” or “serious unseen incident” in relation to “a goal, penalty, direct red card, exchange of identity”. And the bold is present right in the protocol. So, just to be clear, on Sunday evening the Var, Aurelianhe shouldn’t have called Fabbri to tell him that the contact between Milik-Lobotka previous to Di Maria’s goal it had to be seen on the monitor, as the play between the Pole and the Slovak had already been judged regular by Fabbri who was close, even pointing with his arm at the “continue, everything is fine”.
Aureliano didn’t have to call Fabbri again
So the problem is solved upstream. So it is useless to take sides on one side or the other: “Milik anticipates and doesn’t make a foul because he occupies the space to protect the ball”, “Milik makes a foul because before touching the ball he impacts Lobotka’s tibia”, “it is a game tackle like many others”. Regardless of the faith that one has, or the idea that one could have about the existence or not of the faulty intervention, it is objective that we are dealing with a controversial case study, in which no one can claim the right to affirm that it was or it was not foul. On this all those who want to apply an intellectually honest reasoning must agree. And so here is that Aureliano shouldn’t have sensitized Blacksmiths since the referee had subjectively evaluated an action that took place two meters from his eyes and on which one cannot think that there was a “clear and evident error”. This is why the Var had to keep quiet and the match recorded Juventus’ lead eight minutes from the end. Instead…