Tiago Silva slams referee and VAR after Porto-Arouca clash | OneFootball

The noise has settled in once again as FC Porto finds itself at the center of a decisive play. Curious, isn't it? A penalty in favor of the Dragons, in a debatable move like so many others in football, was enough to reignite a debate that, more than seeking clarity, often seems to thrive on constant upheaval.

Tiago Silva summed up the contradiction with a harsh phrase: “The Refereeing Council harms football.” It's a political accusation against the functioning of the structure, not the game itself, and it deserves attention. Because the essential point isn't just the play between Fofana and Arouca. It's about the criteria. Or, more precisely, the lack thereof.

The comment hits the core of the issue when it recalls the case of an “alleged 'CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR' that no one (I repeat, no one) could see.” The phrase is strong precisely because it exposes a feeling many fans know: when the concept of a clear and obvious error stretches or shrinks depending on the context, the problem stops being about a single play and becomes about the system. And if the system cannot explain itself coherently, how can it ask for trust from those observing it?

Then comes the contrast. In the penalty play favorable to FC Porto against Arouca, Tiago Silva writes: “a debatable play that divides commentators and the football community itself.” Well, if it divides commentators, if it divides fans, if it divides interpretations, then we are precisely in the realm of interpretation. And when a play is interpretative, why does the temptation to turn it into a scandal immediately arise when it benefits FC Porto? Isn't that also a rather convenient narrative?

Further on, the criticism becomes even more incisive: “This is not criteria. It's institutionalized confusion.” The wording may be harsh, but the reasoning is simple. If in one situation the VAR intervenes and receives top marks despite the controversy, and in another it does not intervene and receives negative marks precisely because the play is debatable, where is the line? Where is the uniformity? And above all: who explains to the average fan what changes from case to case?

It's important not to lose sight of the essential amidst the noise. FC Porto did what it had to do, gained the advantage near the end, and closed the match with a 3-1. The rest was the usual amplification of an episode that, while debatable, was quickly used to fuel suspicions and selective indignations. When doubt favors others, it's called interpretation. When it falls on Porto's side, a public tribunal is demanded. Coincidence?

Tiago Silva closes with another idea that deserves reflection: “when those who manage refereeing become a source of confusion, the loser is always the same: football.” And here it's hard to disagree. FC Porto doesn't need noise to gain relevance. It needs, indeed, to compete, to be respected, and to see the game analyzed with the same standards for everyone. The rest is the usual: a lot of noise around a club that continues to stir everything and everyone, because the weight of the Dragon never goes unnoticed.

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