Fofana had the ball and was lining up his shot, so what’s the doubt? | OneFootball

The penalty that restored FC Porto’s lead in their 3-1 victory over Arouca remains at the center of discussions. In the 87th minute, during a match that seemed headed for a draw, Seko Fofana—who had come on shortly after Djouahra’s goal to replace Pablo Rosario—received the ball in the box and was stopped by Yellu Santiago just as he was preparing to shoot. Referee Iancu Vasilica immediately pointed to the penalty spot. The VAR, coordinated by Rui Costa, confirmed the decision. William Gomes converted the penalty in the 90+1′ minute, sending Estádio do Dragão into a frenzy and putting Porto back in the lead.

On CMTV’s Liga D’Ouro program, Vítor Pinto, deputy editor of Record, offered a balanced take on the incident—highlighting a detail he considers decisive for those who support the awarding of the penalty.

“The ball is being controlled by the player”

Vítor Pinto began by revealing his personal opinion: in theory, he wouldn’t have called a foul. However, he immediately pointed out the element that makes the incident open to debate and could justify Iancu Vasilica’s decision.

The crucial point concerns the relative positioning of those involved. Fofana appears facing the goal, controlling the ball and preparing to shoot. Santiago, Arouca’s defender, intervenes from behind. Vítor Pinto questioned the idea that the ball was “up for grabs”—as stated by another member of the non-permanent refereeing analysis committee—emphasizing that you can’t talk about the ball being “up for grabs” when the player is actively controlling it and preparing to shoot.

If the defender had been in front of Fofana, it would have been a clear contest for possession and the incident would have lost much of its controversy. But the footage shows a different reality: Santiago comes in from behind, doesn’t reach the ball, and the only effect of his intervention is to prevent the Porto midfielder from shooting. For Vítor Pinto, this constitutes recklessness on the defender’s part—and this is where the argument for awarding the foul lies.

The prediction about VAR Rui Costa

The deputy editor of Record went further and made a concrete prediction. Admitting that the on-field referee, Iancu Vasilica, might even come away from the match with a positive evaluation, Vítor Pinto was more skeptical regarding the video assistant referee: he argued that Rui Costa will hardly escape an unsatisfactory mark for this incident—suggesting that the Refereeing Council may have a different interpretation from the VAR’s confirmation of the penalty.

He made this prediction with the confidence of someone who has already been right in the previous two referee assessments: “The first two times I was right. Let’s see if I’ll be wrong on the third.”

The context of the incident

It’s important to recall when this penalty occurred. FC Porto dominated the match from the very first second—so much so that Pietuszewski scored the fastest goal ever at Estádio do Dragão, at just 13 seconds—but couldn’t extend their lead during a first half they controlled. In the second half, Arouca grew into the game and Djouahra equalized in the 70th minute with a shot from outside the box.

Farioli responded with changes, bringing on Fofana, William Gomes, Rodrigo Mora, and Terem Moffi. It was precisely an initiative from the French international that led to the penalty that changed the course of the game. After the 2-1, Arouca collapsed and Moffi sealed the score at 3-1, already in stoppage time.

On the visitors’ side, the reaction was one of indignation. Captain José Fontán took to social media to express his displeasure, and coach Vasco Seabra was restrained but incisive in his flash interview, hinting that he preferred not to comment to avoid sanctions. Farioli himself, when questioned about the incident, simply stated that from where he was standing, it seemed clear to him.

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇵🇹 here.