UEFA forgets Vinicius: they don’t show the semi-automatic offside image that ended in a penalty | OneFootball

Controversial moves go unnoticed if the final result ends up being favorable. However, last night there was one of those actions that could have changed the course of the match (and the tie) between Manchester City and Real Madrid in the first leg of the Champions League play-offs, especially because it happened in the early moments of the match. A move that has irritated Madrid fans. We are talking about the move involving Vinicius following a pass from Valverde in the tenth minute of the game. The Brazilian stood alone in front of Ederson and was taken down in a clear penalty. The move was disallowed for a very fair offside, and UEFA omitted the 3D image of the semi-automatic offside, sowing doubt in the minds of the club and the Real Madrid fans

The lack of clarity in this decision is even more evident when compared with the validation of Erling Haaland’s goal; in this case, audiovisual technology was used as normal. This disparity in the way refereeing resources are used has led to a wave of criticism and casts doubt on the impartiality of the competition.

The play that could have changed the game

Carlo Ancelotti‘s side dominated from the start, with Vinicius on fire, and could have made the difference in the 10th minute after a pass from Valverde that left him one-on-one with the goalkeeper. The offside call changed the course of the game and gave a morale boost to Manchester City.

The fact that UEFA did not present the image of the semi-automatic offside in this case has raised many questions. The technology was implemented to resolve doubts and facilitate justice in arbitration, but its particular use gives rise to suspicion, hinting at the possibility that serious errors may have occurred that may have influenced the outcome of the match.

The penalty for Vinicius that was not given

The situation was once again at the center of the discussion because after the City goal, Turpin took four minutes to make sure that the goal was valid, a task that led him to review the action with the VAR. On the other hand, Vinicius’ alleged offside position was not even shown, which suggests the suspicions that exist in the application of the technology.

Madrid fans felt aggrieved by this decision and have made their concerns known on social networks and specialist media. The lack of visual evidence of the alleged offside has generated debate about whether the referee’s decision was correct or whether the Spanish team were victims of an error that probably changed the course of the match and, it could be said, of the tie.

Lack of transparency

The use of semi-automatic offside has been a tool for today’s refereeing, but its use has to be consistent, clean and unambiguous. In this case, UEFA has missed an opportunity to present an image that removes all possible doubts about the action.

Cases like this one increase the debate on the subject. Technology must necessarily be used fairly in all situations, without exception, if there is to be justice in elite football. UEFA has to explain why the offside image of Vinicius was not shown, because the absence of evidence only fuels the controversy and gives less credibility to a competition.

Real Madrid, for their part, have not wanted to make any official statement about the controversy, but the indignation among the fans is constant. Madrid fans expect answers and, above all, that events like these do not happen again in future editions of the Champions League.