Goalkeeper Anthony Moris shot at the outstretched leg of Club player Hugo Vetlesen, after which the ball disappeared into the goal. Referee Jasper Vergoote approved it, VAR Lawrence Visser did not intervene either. That decision was met with incomprehension in the Union camp. Christian Burgess, among others, was delirious that the goal was not disallowed.
“Anthony wants to kick out and, I don’t know the rules exactly, but he (Vetlesen, ed.) blocks the shot. He was too close for me. Normally you’re not allowed to do that, but the referee said it was allowed and the VAR agreed with that decision. Of course they thought it was okay, it’s Club…,” said the Union defender after the match.
“I grab the ball and see that Puertas is running deep. I want to play him because the long ball is one of my specialties, but he (Vetlesen, ed.) sticks out his leg and the ball rolls in,” goalkeeper Moris reconstructed the controversial opening goal. “I asked the ref why the goal counted and he told me there should be two meters between me and the player. I don’t think that was the case.”
“Afterwards I asked him again and he said that there is nothing in the regulations that says the goal is not valid. It’s something every weekend, and such phases are always frowned upon, but not today. I don’t understand it,” Moris said.
This contains inserted content from a social media network that wants to write or read cookies. You have not given permission for this.
Click here to adjust your preferences
Coach Alexander Blessin had a different opinion and called it “a slapstick goal”. He understood that the referee and VAR did not intervene and allowed the goal. “The distance (between Vetlesen and Moris, ed.) was okay, I saw in the dressing room after the match. At first I thought Vetlesen was making an active move towards the ball, but it turned out he was running away. He was four steps away from our goalkeeper, so for me it’s a valid goal. No matter how difficult it is, we have to accept this,” said an honest Blessin.
What do the regulations say?
If we refer to the official rules of the IFAB, the International Football Association Board, we read in article 12.2: “An indirect free kick is given when a player prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands or kicks or attempts to kick the ball to kick while the goalkeeper is releasing the ball.”
The referees we contacted responded in different ways. Former ref Alexandre Boucaut states plainly: “It is not allowed to prevent the goalkeeper from releasing the ball,” said the ex-ref, now analyst. “But Vetlesen didn’t prevent anything. I don’t see any mistake from Vetlesen.”
Another still active ref answers: “For me it was a mistake and no goal. But the referee believes that the attacker was at a sufficient distance to be able to speak of a challenge on the goalkeeper. It is also strange that the VAR does not bother to call the ref… he can still do what he wants.”
