Fofana had the ball and was lining up a shot, where’s the doubt? | OneFootball

The penalty that restored FC Porto's lead in the 3-1 victory over Arouca remains at the center of discussions. At the 87th minute, in 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 area and was stopped by Yellu Santiago as he prepared to shoot. Referee Iancu Vasilica immediately pointed to the penalty spot. The VAR, under the coordination of Rui Costa, confirmed the decision. William Gomes converted the penalty at 90+1', causing the Estádio do Dragão to erupt and putting Porto back in the lead.

On CMTV's Liga D’Ouro program, Vítor Pinto, deputy director of Record, presented a balanced view of the incident—highlighting a detail he considers crucial for those defending the penalty call.

“The ball is being controlled by the player”

Vítor Pinto began by revealing his personal opinion: in theory, he would not have called a foul. However, he immediately highlighted the element that makes the incident contestable and could justify Iancu Vasilica's decision.

The key point is the relative positioning of the players involved. Fofana appears facing the goal, controlling the ball and preparing to shoot. Santiago, the Arouca defender, intervenes from behind. Vítor Pinto questioned the idea that the ball was “available”—as stated by another member of the non-permanent arbitration analysis committee—emphasizing that one cannot speak of an “available” ball 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 lose much of its controversy. But the images show a different reality: Santiago comes from behind, does not reach the ball, and the only effect of his intervention is to prevent the Porto midfielder's shot. For Vítor Pinto, this constitutes recklessness on the part of the defender—and this is where the argument for calling the foul lies.

The prediction about VAR Rui Costa

The deputy director of Record went further and made a concrete prediction. Admitting that the field referee, Iancu Vasilica, might come out of the match with a positive evaluation, Vítor Pinto was more skeptical about the video assistant referee: he argued that Rui Costa would hardly escape an unsatisfactory rating for this incident—suggesting that the Arbitration Council might have a different view of the penalty confirmation by VAR.

And he made this prediction with the confidence of someone who has been right in the previous two evaluations of referees: “The first two times I was right. Let's see if I will fail this third time.”

The context of the incident

It is important to remember when this penalty occurred. FC Porto dominated the match from the first second—so much so that Pietuszewski scored the fastest goal ever at Estádio do Dragão, at 13 seconds—but failed to extend the lead during a first half of control. In the second half, Arouca stepped up their game and Djouahra equalized in the 70th minute with a shot from outside the area.

Farioli responded with changes, bringing on Fofana, William Gomes, Rodrigo Mora, and Terem Moffi. It was precisely an initiative by the French international that led to the penalty that changed the course of the game. After the 2-1, Arouca crumbled 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 the flash interview, insinuating that he preferred not to comment to avoid sanctions. Farioli himself, when questioned about the incident, simply stated that from where he was, it seemed clear.

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