SportsTalk April 17 News Today, the Chinese Football Association announced the results of the third round of referee evaluation work, whichsupported 7 referee decisions and determined that one case was in the Super League The referee made a mistake. Among the 8 cases reviewed in this issue, 7 are key cases for clubs to lodge complaints. There is also a case involving VAR intervention between Qingdao Hainiu and Shandong Taishan in the fourth round of the Chinese Super League. No club complained, but it has attracted public attention. The Chinese Football Association believes that it is a typical case with clear rules and unified penalty standards, and it is also included in this issue. Review cases to respond to social concerns.
Case 1: In the 4th round of the Chinese Super League, Qingdao Hainiu VS Shandong Taishan, in the 37th minute of the game, the Shandong team After the goal was scored, after VAR intervention and the referee’s on-site review, it was ruled that the Shandong team had obtained the ball through a foul during the offensive development stage, and the goal was invalid. The review team unanimously believed that in the initial stage of the attack, the action of Shandong Taishan player No. 7 and Qingdao Hainiu player No. 10 to compete for the ball and obtain the ball was a foul, and it was at the same offensive development stage as the subsequent goal. After VAR intervention, The referee’s decision to invalidate the Shandong team’s goal was correct. In addition, some members of the review team believed that the No. 32 player of the Shandong team who scored the goal also committed a foul when competing for the ball with the opponent and gaining possession of 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 Henan Club’s No. 20 player made contact with the opponent’s head when he took off to grab the ball in the air. After VAR intervention and the referee’s on-site review, Henan Club player No. 20 was sentenced to a serious foul and a red card was shown to him. Regarding this case, the review team unanimously believed that the action of Henan Club player No. 20 was a serious foul. After VAR intervention, The referee’s decision to award a serious foul and send him off 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, Henan Club player No. 27 came into contact with Shandong Taishan player No. 2 while fighting for the ball in the opponent’s penalty area and collapsed. The referee did not call a foul on the spot, and VAR did not intervene. Regarding this case, the review team unanimously believed that the action of Shandong team No. 2 was a normal and reasonable action to compete for the ball position, and the referee did not commit a foul on the spot. The decision is correct.
Case 4: Qingdao West Coast in the 5th round of the Chinese Super League VS Tianjin Jinmen Tigers, in the 88th minute of the game, when Qingdao West Coast player No. 10 and Tianjin Jinmen Tigers No. 7 player were fighting for the ball, the referee showed a red card on the spot and VAR intervened. After the referee reviewed it on the spot. The initial penalty was maintained. Regarding this case, the review team unanimously believed that judging from the contact between Qingdao team player No. 10 and the opponent’s player, his fighting action was a reckless foul and not a serious foul. A yellow card warning should be issued, and the on-the-spot VAR intervention was correct. ,The referee’s decision to show the red card and uphold the red card after reviewing it are both wrong decisions. class=”thumb_img” src=”https://vodapp.duoduocdn.com/4a8d9c67vodtransgzp1251542705/19e4a7811397757889143513999/coverBySnapshot/coverBySnapshot_10_0.jpg” alt=””> src=”//tu.duoduocdn. com/ico/video_play3x. png” class=”video_play”>
Case 5: In the 6th round of the Chinese Super League, Shenzhen Xinpengcheng VS Wuhan Sanzhen. In the 6th minute of the game, Shenzhen Xinpengcheng No. 31 player was in the penalty area with Wuhan Sanzhen. The team member No. 19 of the Town made contact while fighting for the ball, and the latter fell to the ground. The referee did not call a foul on the spot, and VAR did not intervene. Regarding this case, the review team unanimously believed that the physical contact between the two sides was within the normal scope of the game. The player took advantage of the situation and fell to the ground. Player No. 31 of the Shenzhen team did not foul. The on-the-spot referee made the correct decision not to foul.
Case 6: In the 6th round of the Chinese League One, Dalian Yingbo VS Liaoning Ironman, in the 80th minute of the game, Liaoning Ironman No. 7 player led The ball entered the opponent’s penalty area and Dalian Yingbo’s No. 11 player made a tackle. Regarding this case, most members of the review team believed that based on the situation shown in the existing video, the defensive player touched the ball first when making the tackle. The subsequent contact with the opponent’s player was not a foul. The on-the-spot referee’s decision not to commit a foul was correct.
Case 7: No. 6 in China League One In the 5th minute of the round of Heilongjiang Bingcheng VS Jiangxi Lushan, Heilongjiang Bingcheng player No. 23 touched the ball while intercepting the opponent’s pass. The referee ruled that it was not a handball foul and the game continued. Regarding this precedent, the review team unanimously believed that the current situation was. The video cannot clearly show the body parts of the players in contact with the ball, as well as the position and movement process of the players’ arms. Most members believe that judging from the overall movements of the players, the referee’s decision on the spot was not a handball foul and should be supported.
Case 8:In the 4th round of China League Two, Shandong Taishan Jingangshan VS Langfang City of Glory, in the 16th minute of the game, goalkeeper No. 12 of the Langfang team was defending the attack of player No. 46 of the Shandong Taishan Jingangshan team outside the penalty area. The opponent’s offensive player fell to the ground, and the referee judged on the spot that the Langfang team’s goalkeeper had destroyed the opponent’s obvious goal scoring opportunity (DOGSO) through a foul, and showed the red card to send the Langfang team’s goalkeeper No. 12 out. Regarding this case, most members of the review team believed that the defensive action of Langfang team goalkeeper No. 12 was a foul that destroyed the opponent’s obvious scoring opportunity; some members pointed out that the existing video cannot absolutely clearly show the physical contact between the two sides, and should support and Respecting the on-field referee’s decision,therefore the review team determined that the on-field referee’s decision to issue a red card on the grounds of DOGSO was correct.
Finally, the Football Association stated: The Chinese Football Association will continue to uphold fairness , the principle of fairness and openness, actively accept feedback and appeals from clubs, conduct reviews and publish review results to the public on key cases and typical cases that have received high social attention and are conducive to unifying the scale of penalties, and review relevant errors and omissions of referees Imposition of internal sanctions.
