There were no seconds to define the last place in the semifinals on penalties. Estudiantes and Athletico Paranaense drew goalless and, in the twilight of the match, a lone goal from Vitor Roque put the Brazilians ahead. The men of ‘Pincha’, and the more than 30,000 souls who filled the UN stadium, went out to meet the referee. The request for a hand at the beginning of the show added to several controversies in favor of the Paranaense.
The Uruguayan referee Andrés Matonte was the face of the controversy, but in the background appears the figure of Andrés Cunha, responsible for the application of the VAR, a repeat offender in this matter of arbitration disputes. Juan Sebastián Verón, vice president of the club, went a little further and pointed out Conmebol on their social networks. “Conmebol does what Conmebol does. It doesn’t matter when you read this,” he wrote.
The players of “Pincha” pointed to the referee. (Photo: Martín Bonetto – FTP CLARIN)
A night of controversy
We can talk about the goal disallowed against Luciano Lollo for advanced position, or the last play of the Paranaense goal, in which two hands were made: one by David Terans at the start, and the other by Vitor Roque to define. In any case, there were several divisions for Brazilians, which made Estudiantes feel like a visitor to their own city.
Among the protagonists, the first to speak was the Russian Zielinski, who, after the game just ended, discharged his anger against the referee. Subsequently, he gave some details of this crossing and launched: “The referee is the big one and I told him to his face. Not just for the goals, but because all the divisions were paid to the Brazilians, he should have warned or sent off some players and didn’t“.
Now, Conmebol was in charge of making the VAR audios known in Lollo’s game, where Morel’s presence was accused along with goalkeeper Bento.
In the video of just over four minutes, which was released early Friday morning, it is clearly seen than the judge Andrés Matonte was the one who decided not to collect the goal of ‘Pincha’, keeping its initial sentence. Cunha called him to review the game, but the referee replied: “I intend to keep the offside decision”.
But before finally canceling the goal, the referee took it upon himself to see the play several times, as well as commenting on the controversy with his assistants. And Cunha, from the cabin, commented: “The player is ahead of the goalkeeper’s vision, I think he doesn’t cover it for defensive action, but the ball goes from behind … The ball passes between the player and the goalkeeper, but does not prevent him from making the move. “
“I see, the striker, the number 5, makes a move, is close to the goalkeeper, and it is precisely where the ball passes”, justified the referee, who thus gave Atletico Paranaense another life. Fans still can’t believe it.
Vitor Roque connects at the end and scores the winning goal for Paranaense. The ball seems to hit his shoulder, so the goal would be valid. Luis ROBAYO / AFP.
The audio of the VAR of the goal canceled against Estudiantes
-VAR: Possible offside
REFEREE: VAR intervenes: Did he charge? He will charge for the offside. Come on, we’re still there.
ASSISTANT: The number 5 in the shot from the back is offside VAR: there in that shot I want to see the position of the 5 in one behind the goal or inside the goal. Can it be inside the arch? To move on.
-VAR: The player is ahead of the goalkeeper’s view, I think he doesn’t cover him for defensive action, but the ball passes from behind.
-VAR: The ball passes between the player and the goalkeeper, right? But the goalkeeper doesn’t stop him from making the move.
-AVAR: The key is whether it causes impact …
-VAR: Impact because it is ahead. There is a moment that covers his vision and he is ahead. The court decision was offside.
-AVAR: Does it have an impact?
-VAR: For me the goalkeeper always sees the ball, except for a moment and does not prevent him from jumping.
-AVAR: When the ball goes out, it is not in front of the goalkeeper. However, the one who covers the goalkeeper’s view is the teammate.
-VAR: I agree, he doesn’t make a move towards the ball.
-AVAR: Come and evaluate it.
-VAR: I recommend an OFR to assess whether or not there is interference from the player who is in an offside position.
-VAR: We show you the one behind the door … There I show you the movement of the player after the header.
REFEREE: Yes, good. The position now, Andrés.
-VAR: He’s in an offside position.
REFEREE: Andrés, give me the other, give me the previous one.
-VAR: The one inside the door?
REFEREE: Perfect, let her go.
VAR: Take a ride …
REFEREE: I see, the attacker, the number 5, makes a move, is close to the goalkeeper, and that’s where the ball passes. I will keep the decision offside.
Paranaense’s goal and the memory of Matías Suárez
And if the one claimed against Estudiantes is that of Lollo’s goal, no less controversy is that of Paranaense’s goal, with which the Brazilians sealed their heartbreaking qualification for the Libertadores semifinals. ‘Pincha’ men claimed a hand early in the game, but the one the VAR reviewed was that of Vitor Roque, who scored the goal.
For the shortlist of Uruguayan arbitration candidates, it was nothing. They validated the goal, but then the controversy on social media exploded. And it is that there is more than one photo that generates controversy, and which shows how the 17-year-old, apparently, defined himself with his arm. The game is reminiscent of Matías Suárez’s goal against Vélez.
Indeed, Andujar himself underlined this comparison. Although he decided not to deepen the referee controversy, the goalkeeper ‘Pincha’ spoke of the play that closed the series, and launched: “Lollo’s goal is of interpretation, but he plays it with his hand in theirs. It is very similar to that of Matías Suárez in River. Technology is good, but it’s managed by people. “
In comparison, there are many similarities between the two lenses. The difference is that one has been validated and the other has not. Regarding the performance of the judges, Andujar ruled: “Matonte and Cunha spent a terrible night”.