Two balls on the pitch and another controversy in favor of the Central Barracks: the unusual action that led to a review of the regulation

The saying “get famous and go to sleep” is older than football. But that feeling reappears whenever there’s a controversial game he’s involved in. Central BarracksThe team of Claudio Chiqui Tapiapresident of the AFA.

From Rodolfo De Paolo he returned as DT to the club where he got a historic promotion to the club last season First division, El Guapo famously raised his level and he did so above all by playing on his court, where he achieved four consecutive victories. That winning streak allows him to dream of playing the next one South American Cupnothing less.

But the feeling has been installed for a couple of years in the football environment: impossible to think of Barracas Central and not associate it with the influence that Chiqui Tapia’s aura has on referee decisions. The antecedents weigh, even if sometimes prejudices do it more.

This Saturday was clearly demonstrated, in what ended up being a 3-1 win for Barracas Central against Godoy Cruz.

The first half of the duel was played at the Claudio Chiqui Tapia stadium, in the south of the city of Buenos Aires. They were 0-0, the match was even and the visit seemed to be closer to first place, when in the midst of a Tomba attack, a ball fell from the local stands on the pitch, interrupting the game started by the Mendoza team. What happened to the referee?

Leandro Rey Hilfer whistles, stops the game and resumes the game with a “dropped ball” giving the ball to the Barracas Central goalkeeper, who went from being attacked in a dangerous way to having comfortable control of the ball within his area.

Of course, Godoy Cruz’s footballers vehemently protested him and patiently explained his reasons. And the video began to circulate on the networks pointing out in a conspiratorial tone what was considered another sentence in favor of Tapia’s team. The only certainty is that neither one nor the other is clear about what the regulation says: another evil that affects our football every day, and that also includes a large part of journalism.

Rule 8 of the International Football Association Board (IFAB), entitled “Start and Restart of Play”, describes in point 2 in which cases a throw-in must be taken. “The referee will award a lineout to the defending team’s goalkeeper in his own penalty area if, while play is stopped: the ball is in the penalty area or the ball was last touched inside the penalty area “.

As the pictures show, Rey Hilfer’s decision was correct. The important thing in these cases is to respect what the legislation says, even if at times it seems unfair.

The case of Atlético Tucumán

A couple of dates makes another “unfair” action has the regulations revised. It was in the match between Atlético Tucumán and Banfield, when local goalkeeper Carlos Lampe was the protagonist of a play that left everyone without knowing what should be sanctioned.

What happened? Tucuman’s team right-back Martín Garay intentionally passed the ball to Lampe. The former Boca and Vélez, in that case, could not touch the ball with their hand. However, the passage, very high, passes it and goes non-stop to the end of the door. That’s why the Bolivian reached out and stopped the shot, preventing what was a goal for Drill.

The Banfield players quickly passed referee Darío Herrera, who scored an indirect free kick, as indicated in the rules when the goalkeeper uses his hands to control a pass from a teammate, and that decision was not made. moved. Does the goalkeeper have to be sent off for interrupting an obvious scoring action?

Although the goalkeeper is the only player who has the power to touch the ball with his hand in his own area, in this case, due to a pass by a teammate, he is unable to do so – hence the indirect -. What Lampe is doing, on the other hand, is avoiding an obvious goal chance … he Can’t touch the ball with his hand, but can he touch the ball with his hand? Is there a gap in the regulations that the deans of the International Board review year after year? Or was Herrera’s decision correct?

Yes indeed: the referee was not wrong. How come? Because there is a directive that when an archer uses his arm it is not considered a last resort because it is a body part that he can use. When it comes to a teammate back pass, it is not considered an obvious opportunity to score.

A curiosity: Herrera was present at the VAR of the match between Barracas Central and Godoy Cruz.