Beligoy, the director of referees at the AFA, spoke about the Lanús-River controversy: was Lema’s goal disallowed?

48 hours have passed but what happened on Saturday at the La Fortaleza stadium between Lanús and River, who won the game 2-0, continues to be talked about. On social videos and opinions on the referee’s decision Dario Herrera and the VAR managers –Leandro Rey Hilfer AND Pablo Gonzalez– They multiply. But this Monday, the National Director of Arbitration, Frederick Beligoypronounced the official sentence on the controversial annulment of the goal of Christian Motto.

“Yes or yes to talk about this play I have to go to what is strictly regulated. You have to start from the point where there was a Lanús player in an offside position, but it is not always punishable, of course, we all know that In a play in which a goal is scored and there is an offside player in a close position, that’s why the review begins, which has been exhaustive and long, which I take care of”began his discussion Beligoy.

And I add: “I know the play is difficult, it’s not easy to understand, but by the rules it is broadly typed and clearly described as offside through interference. The article talks about delaying, impeding, obstructing or preventing a player from obviously being able to play the ball”.

“The game took time, the VAR looked for a touch on the Lanús player, who wasn’t there, then moved on to the interference situation, which is more complicated. When those considerations that I mentioned earlier were found, the conditions for that being offside. This is the legal explanation of the game”he completed, in statements to ESPN.

How was the comedy?

Cristian Lema headed Matías Esquivel’s fine cross to beat Franco Armani. It was the equalizer; It’s been 15 minutes. Nobody complained because everything seemed in order. But it took a while to get to River at the request of referee Darío Herrera, who was fingering his earpiece. Leandro Rey Hilfer, in charge of VAR, and Pablo González, as AVAR, were reviewing something. Speculations began about an alleged foul by Lema and it was even thought that the ball had gone out in Esquivel’s throw.

What happened? José Canale was one centimeter ahead and close to Armani’s field of vision. The presence of the Paraguayan defender also impeded González Pirez’s movement. And that’s what the participants thought they saw. The feeling that remained was that Canale did not have an active participation in the goal. It was, of course, a performance move and that’s why Herrera went to watch her on screen. They convinced him after more than 5 minutes and the madness of all Lanús broke out.

“I think if they went to see the VAR, they were early. In the first match they annoyed González Pirez,” said Franco Armani, the figure of the night.

Frank Kudelka was expelled for insulting anyone who crossed his path; Lautaro Acosta invited Enzo Pérez to fight and exchanged insults with coach Martín Demichelis. Tempers were heated. In the last, Lanús had another goal disallowed for offside by Troyansky. It was clear. The highly controversial was the first.

And the people of Lanús exploded when Herrera marked the end. Several shells fell from the crowd and one hit Enzo Díaz, who lay on the substitutes’ bench for a couple of minutes. Nor was it easy for referee Herrera to leave: several private security personnel had to contain the grenade fans. What’s more: the police had to build a roof with shields for him to retire to the locker room.