Was it criminal or was it not criminal? This is the question that has been going round since Sunday evening after the last game of the classic between Racing and Boca which ended goalless at the Cilindro de Avellaneda, but with a heavy controversy over the decision of the referee Fernando Rapallini who even covered the ” discussion “, as Hugo Ibarra defined it, between Darío Benedetto and Carlos Zambrano and his disfigured face following a fight in the tunnel leading to the changing rooms.

It was criminal

It was criminal. Everyone said it at Boca after seeing the repetition that Rapallini himself observed from the monitor on the recommendation of Fernando Espinoza, the referee who was in charge of the VAR and who forced him to review the game. It is clear that Jonathan Gómez, the Racing midfielder, drags the remaining ball between his left arm and body after the desperate closure to try to prevent Sebastián Villa from finishing the action.

The comedy at first respects a precept that would give the right to Rapallini’s gaze. The rulebook says: “Not all hand or arm contact is an infringement.” And he adds: “The referees must evaluate the position of the hands or arm with respect to the action of the player in a given situation”.

It looks criminal. Big as the cylinder when the former Rosario Central stops the ball with his left hand after that drag. There, after all the repetitions, it seems that Gómez touches the ball voluntarily with his hand or arm, for example, making a movement towards the ball with these parts of the body.

The interpretation of the rule is extended because the referee could have interpreted that the player has touched “the ball with his hand or arm when these are unnaturally positioned and make the body take up more space”. In this regard, to dispel doubts, they clarify that “it will be considered that they have occupied more space in an unnatural way when the position of the hand or arm is not a consequence of the movement of their body in that specific action or cannot be justified by said movement”. The regulation, in force since mid-2021, even says that “by putting the hand or arm in that position, the player risks that the ball will hit that part of his body and cause an infringement”.

Obviously it is a matter of judgment. What Espinoza saw from Ezeiza’s VOR cabin is different from Rapallini’s perception on the pitch. In fact, it took him less than a minute to validate his performance on the monitor. “The hand is not voluntary. There is no intention,” he let the shortlist of referees transcend to try to settle the controversy.

It wasn’t criminal

It wasn’t a penalty for Rapallini and we don’t know why. The decision not to publish the VAR audios helps that mystery. Also to the stamp of silence of the judge who will go to the Qatar 2022 World Cup and of the head of referees, Federico Beligoy, who until now has chosen not to go out to defend or question the referee’s decision.

An excellent alibi for Rapallini is the shot that appeared at the end of the game and that was not part of the shooting menu that the VAR offered him. There you can clearly see that Villa, the other protagonist of the show, has come to dispute the ball with an iron shot. Therefore, before the alleged sanction there was an infringement which renders the sanction non-existent even if it had existed.

In Racing it is said that the Colombian’s entry not only caused a cut in Gómez’s leg, but also broke his shin. “I don’t know what the referee charged, but I think there was a previous foul,” said Fernando Gago.

However, Rapallini did not at any time blame the attacker’s infringement. The action, in fact, continues and Mura, with the head, pulls on the line of Frank Fabra who would have given the victory to Boca. Nor does the VAR observe the game.