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

“I was asked to speak here a little about the refereeing regarding yesterday’s game, about a few things. First, I want to say that I don’t think Brazilian referees are bad. I think Brazil’s big problem is the lack of consistent criteria. We just had Rafael Claus, Wilton (Sampaio), and (Ramon) Abati at the Club World Cup, and they performed well, because the criteria there are clear, as we saw, for example, with a foul that here in Brazil led to Carrascal being sent off, while at the World Cup it wouldn’t even be considered a foul. And the criteria are different, but here in Brazil they always have to be the same. Regarding yesterday’s game, there are two things. The first is to be clear about whether using the arm, deliberately, even if the arm is close to the body, deliberately, to gain an advantage, is a foul or not. And the CBF refereeing committee keeps saying that it isn’t a foul anywhere in Brazil, it isn’t a foul in any area of the field, that you can score goals with the arm like that, because what happened yesterday, in my view, and I’ve even asked some referee friends I have around the world, that is a penalty because he gains an advantage by using the arm, even though the arm is almost next to the body, but his intention to deflect the ball and alter its path with the arm and not with another part of the body that could legally play it is clear, and as far as I know, the arm cannot legally play it. In any case, the refereeing committee 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 don’t blame Daronco, whom I actually consider an excellent referee, but I don’t blame him because his view wasn’t the clearest, but VAR’s view has to be clear. It has to be that, it has to be that way. What can’t happen is for me to hear a refereeing expert say, ‘it wouldn’t matter, if it were given for me it would be fine, if it weren’t given that would also be fine.’ That just can’t be, because then what will happen is that on one field they won’t call it, in one state they won’t call it, and in another state they will, and that is what creates and generates controversy and prevents refereeing from having the peace of mind needed to do the good job that is asked of them. Regarding automated offside, I think there is a point here, and I’m not an expert, neither in refereeing nor in technology, but there is a point that has to be clarified. When exactly is that line drawn? With that line, the offside should be drawn at the exact moment of the pass, and that is never visible in the images. Because normally what we watch, both now at the World Cup and in other leagues, is an image that shows the moment the ball leaves and then the line being drawn there, showing the whole field. 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’m not doubting that it is, that 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 Committee have to clarify and say: my friends, it is correct, it is being drawn like this, we may be missing some software to show it, but it is being drawn like this. Because that avoids any controversy, and there are controversies every week, but what is being asked for is criteria, equal criteria, and that does not depend on the referees. That depends on the CBF Refereeing Committee. Good evening.”

Ver detalles de la publicación