Here is a mea culpa which, to be brave, has not finished making people talk. And to enrage Jean-Michel Aulas, the Lyon president… Indeed, OL should have been awarded the 1-1 goal at the very end of the match once morest Lille at Groupama Stadium on Sunday evening, according to the statements of the boss of French arbitration himself, Pascal Garibian, on the website of the Lyon daily Le Progrès this Monday followingnoon.
The technical director of arbitration (DTA) explains that Paqueta’s goal should not have been refused by the VAR. He specifies that only one angle of view was offered to Clément Turpin, when the latter had initially validated the equalizer of the Brazilian, despite a clash with the northern goalkeeper Jardim.
“We analyzed this Monday morning with my staff at the DTA the contentious situation of OL Lille, explains Mr. Garibian. We noted that it was regrettable that all the angles of images proposed might not be appreciated by the referee. This goal should have been validated, as it had been on the ground.
Clearly, the VAR would have done better to abstain in this case. “If one of the angles of view might suggest an excess of commitment from Mr. Paqueta during the clearance of the Lille goalkeeper, another angle, that coming from the left magnifying glass, demonstrated that the initial decision of the referee of ‘Allowing the goal was the right one, adds Mr. Garibian.
As Prime Video consultant Corinne Petit had suggested, Mr. Turpin therefore only saw the action from one angle, and not the right one. “Even if the sending of the images was done in a desire to propose to the referee to make his final choice, a flow is missing. We recognize an error. It is always the video assistant who offers the referee the different angles.
Sunday evening, it was Mikaël Lesage who officiated from the VAR management in Paris. Still, it will not change the result of the match, nor the Lyon defeat.
In addition to the merit of honesty, the recognition of this error will also have the effect of releasing Mr. Turpin from liability for an officiating fault.
But a human decision wrongly judged by the machine, that will not fail to bring water to the mill of the opponents of the VAR.
