Fofana had the ball and was lining up his shot, where’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, in a match heading 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 in the 90+1′, causing an explosion of joy at Estádio do Dragão and putting Porto back in the lead.

On the CMTV program Liga D’Ouro, Vítor Pinto, deputy director of Record, presented a balanced view of the incident—highlighting a detail he considers crucial for those supporting 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 pointed out the element that makes the incident contestable and could justify Iancu Vasilica's decision.

The crucial point is the relative positioning of the players involved. Fofana is 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 you 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 on-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 VAR's confirmation of the penalty.

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 be wrong 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 they couldn't 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 reacted 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 injury 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, hinting 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.