Former judges analyze Castelão’s controversial moves
Anderson Daronco’s refereeing of Palmeiras’ win in opposition to Ceará yesterday (30), in Castelão, for the twentieth day of the Brazilian Championship, upset either side. While the Alviverdes query Danilo’s penalty in Vina, the Alvinegros demand a penalty from Gustavo Gómez in Mendoza.
The first controversial play occurred on the finish of the primary half, within the conflict between Gómez and Mendoza in the midst of the world. The followers noticed a penalty, however Daronco and VAR agreed the transfer was authorized.
The penalty in favor of Ceara was entered within the thirty fourth minute of the second part. Daronco noticed a foul on Danilo Vina on the sting of the field and pointed to the center. The VAR agreed with the choice of the sphere and didn’t name the gaucho to evaluate the provide on the sting of the sphere.
The referee’s motion upset Palmeiras administration. In the post-match press convention, soccer director Anderson Barros strongly criticized Daronco and known as on the CBF to take a robust stance on refereeing in Brazil. Last week, President Leila Pereira was at CBF headquarters to speak about arbitration.
“Today, we had a really sophisticated and delicate arbitration of Anderson Daronco. These are quite common conditions in our soccer. We have an excellent product in our palms, and someway we’re managing to cut back its worth,” he stated. Barros..
To UOL Sport, 4 former judges reviewed each presents. Everyone identified the referee’s mistake in Vina’s penalty. The provide between Gustavo Gómez and Mendoza divided opinion.
Danilo x Vina
Ceara scored the one aim of the sport after Danilo’s penalty was transformed by Vina. After reducing down the Palmeiras midfielder, the striker fell within the field and Daronco scored the penalty, which was transformed by Mendoza.
Former referee Alfredo Loebeling has known as the marking “disgraceful”, for the reason that battle between the gamers is “pure”.
“The penalty for Ceara is unlucky. It was nothing. A physique motion. Natural”, he assessed.
Carlos Eugênio Simon continued in the identical approach: “Vina touches the ball and finally ends up falling into the dispute with the opponent. There is contact, however it isn’t a violation. It was not a penalty.”
Edilson Pereira de Carvalho already believes that Vina “acted” after being in touch with Danilo. “I did not assume it was a penalty in favor of Ceara, the participant leaves his physique, leaves the query of the ball and performs.”
José Aparecido criticized Daronco for not reviewing the provide in VAR.
“The given penalty didn’t occur, although the referee was close by. His conviction was such that he most popular to refuse the VAR session, as a way to higher decide the sport itself.”
The referee, nevertheless, can solely go to the monitor if the sales space doesn’t agree with the choice on the pitch.
Gomez vs. Mendoza
The battle within the space between Gustavo Gomez and Mendoza, then again, created variations between the judges. While Loebeling, Simon and Edilson indicated that they’d intention for the middle of the world, José Aparecido didn’t see any irregularities within the provide.
“The supposed empty penalty did not actually occur,” José Aparecido stated. Simon, then again, expressed the impulse of the captain Alviverde: “Penalti”.
Edilson identified that Gómez is “an outdated acquaintance of the referee”, and he noticed the fault within the conflicts with the Vozão striker.
“This is a penalty for Ceará, this defender from Palmeiras, an outdated pal of the referee, very difficult in virtually each transfer. A foul on this, and a foul inside the world is a penalty”
Finally, Loebeling noticed Daronco’s “compensation” within the recreation between Vina and Danilo, after the missed penalty in Mendoza.
“I feel that Daronco scored as a result of he did not rating within the first half, which is scandalous. The referee is misplaced. It was compensation,” he added.