Boto hits out at Flamengo v São Paulo officiating, rues penalty | OneFootball

“I was asked to speak here a little about the refereeing in relation to yesterday’s game, about a few things. First, I want to say that I do not think Brazilian referees are bad. I think Brazil’s biggest problem is the lack of consistency. We had Rafael Claus, Wilton (Sampaio) and (Ramon) Abati at the Club World Cup, and they delivered good performances, because there the criteria are clear, as we saw, for example, with a foul that here in Brazil led to Carrascal being sent off, while at the Club World Cup it would not even be considered a foul. And the standard is different, when here in Brazil it should always be the same. Regarding yesterday’s game, there are two things. The first is to be clear about whether the use of the arm, openly, even if the arm is close to the body, openly, to gain an advantage, is a foul or not. And the CBF refereeing commission keeps saying that it is not a foul anywhere in Brazil, it is not a foul in any area of the pitch, you can score goals with your arm like that, because what happened yesterday, in my view, and I have even asked a few referee friends I have around the world, that is a penalty because he gains an advantage from using his arm, even though the arm is almost next to the body. But his intention to deflect the ball and alter its path with his arm, and not with another part of the body that is allowed to play it, is clear, and as far as I know, the arm is not allowed to play it. In any case, the refereeing commission has to come out and say, no, here the rule is this, and the rule is always this, and that helps the referee, and it helps VAR, because I do not blame Daronco, whom I even consider an excellent referee, but I do not blame him because his view was not the clearest, but VAR’s view has to be clear. It has to be this, it has to be this for it to be so. What cannot happen is for me to hear a refereeing expert say, ‘it would have been fine for me if it had been called, and if it had not been called, that would also have been fine.’ That simply cannot be. Because then what happens is that at one stadium they will not call it, in one state they will not call it, and in another state they will call it, and that is what creates and fuels controversy and prevents refereeing from having the peace of mind needed to do the good job expected of them. Regarding automated offside, I think there is a point here that needs to be clarified, and I am no expert, neither in refereeing nor in technology. When is that line drawn? With that line, the offside should be drawn at the moment of the pass, and that is never visible in the images. Because normally what we see, both now at the World Cup and in other leagues, is an image showing the exact moment the ball leaves and then the line being drawn there, showing the whole field. But there, no, they only showed the two players, Wallace Yan’s foot and the other player’s foot. We are not sure, we do not know, and I am not doubting that it was, but we do not know whether that line was drawn at the exact moment the pass was made, because that is what counts. And that is also what the CBF and the Refereeing Commission have to clarify and say: my friends, it is correct, it is being drawn like this, we may be missing some software to show that, but it is being drawn like this. Because that avoids any controversy, and there are controversies every single week, but what is being asked for is consistency, equal standards, and that does not depend on the referees. That depends on the CBF Refereeing Commission. Good evening.”

Impressum des Publishers ansehen