Penalty Or Vinícius Pool? The VAR, in the spotlight

Controversy at the Bernabéu: Penalty or Vinícius Pool? The VAR, in the Spotlight

The referee's action and the intervention (or lack thereof) of the VAR in the second penalty on Vinícius generates an intense debate between experts and fans.

The Santiago Bernabéu witnessed a match full of tension and, of course, controversy. The second penalty awarded in favor of Real Madrid, after an action between Aramburu and Vinícius, has unleashed a storm of opinions. The controversy centers on the Brazilian player's alleged simulation and the VAR's decision not to intervene, leaving many feeling that sporting justice was not applied correctly.

From the Game Time microphones, at COPE, the analysis table showed a clear inclination towards not signaling the penalty. The general perception pointed to a possible 'piscinazo' by Vinícius, an action that should have been sanctioned instead of rewarded with a maximum penalty.

One of those who modified his criteria after reviewing the images was Paco González, director of the program. “The more I see it, the less of a penalty it seems to me,” he admitted. “There is contact between Aramburu's right thigh and Vinícius' right foot, yes, but my doubt arises from the Brazilian's clear intention to drop as soon as he overtakes the defender. I feel that there is more of a 'pool' than a penalty action. I understand the referee because live, with the speed of the game, it could have seemed like a clear penalty.”

The perspective of COPE arbitration expert, Pedrito Martín, added fuel to the fire. Although he recognized that Aramburu's position could have led to a penalty due to his defensive movement, he influenced Vinícius' anticipation by dropping. “For me, when you shoot, it's no longer a penalty,” Martín said. However, he considered that it was not an action for the VAR to intervene, arguing that this season its participation has been limited, especially in situations where there is physical contact.

This argument did not convince Manolo Lama, who narrated the match from the grass. “He dives. And that's what the VAR is for,” he stated emphatically. “The problem is that the VAR, when there is contact, no longer corrects. And I don't understand that. As Pacheta said yesterday, 'the VAR has come to correct a lot, but there are days when it doesn't feel like correcting'. When it is interested, it corrects; when not, it doesn't. Today, it hasn't corrected.”

The debate on the interpretation of the actions and the application of video arbitration remains open. The fans, divided between the defense of their colors and the search for sporting justice, hope that in future occasions technology will serve to clarify controversial plays and not to add more controversy to the football spectacle.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Bernabéu Controversy

• What was the play that generated the controversy?
  The second penalty awarded in favor of Real Madrid after an action between Aramburu and Vinícius at the Santiago Bernabéu.
• What did COPE Game Time think about the play?
  The majority considered that a penalty should not have been called and that there was simulation on the part of Vinícius.
• Did Paco González change his opinion about the play?
  Yes, after watching the replays, he considered that there was more simulation than a penalty.
• What criteria did Pedrito Martín follow to analyze the action?
  He believed that although there could have been contact, the fact that Vinícius jumped before would invalidate the action as a penalty.
• Why does Pedrito Martín believe that the VAR did not intervene?
  He argued that the VAR intervenes little this year and does not do so when there is contact.
• What was Manolo Lama's position regarding the VAR decision?
  He disagreed, stating that the VAR should have intervened to correct the possible simulation.
• What criticism did Manolo Lama make about the use of VAR?
  He pointed out that the VAR seems to correct only when it “feels like it” or is “interested.”
• What is expected from future VAR interventions?
  Technology is expected to help clarify controversial plays and not generate more debate.
• Which player was the protagonist of the penalty action?
  Vinícius Junior.
• Against which team was the game played?
  The Royal Society.

If you are interested in the world of sports betting and want to stay up to date with the best strategies and analysis, we invite you to join our community on Telegram: https://t.me/casino_gurus