Good work by a competent referee, with a lot of quality and experience
Nuno Almeida’s experience allowed him to perform well at Estádio da Luz
Referee Score: 7
Nuno Almeida refereed Benfica-Vitória de Guimarães. André Narciso was the VAR. Below is a technical analysis of the most relevant bids of the match:
4’– André Silva was disarmed by the foot of Otamendi, who touched the ball without committing an infraction. Despite the forward’s fall, the move (in the red area) was legal. The transmission did not play any replays of the play.
8’– Jota Silva shot at Samuel Soares’ goal post, but only after starting from an irregular position. Nuno Almeida did well not to interrupt the match, because Benfica went out to play.
11’– At the time of Rafa’s pass to Di María, the Argentine was behind the opponent’s defensive curtain, soon in a regular position. Then it was the misfortune of Jorge Fernandes, who inadvertently deflected the ball into his goal. Cool goal.
17’-Tiago Silva was shown a yellow card after a negligent tackle on Rafa. Good decision.
19’– Red card well shown to João Mendes. The Vitória player was not malicious or used excessive force, but his negligent approach (not taking into account the possible danger to Otamendi) resulted in physical contact that clearly put the Argentine’s physical integrity at risk. That’s what validated the gross foul. Well done referee.
21’– Yellow poorly shown to Bah. Nuno Almeida was deceived by the apparatus in the fall of Jota Silva. The winger was not negligent in contact with the opponent.
33’– Legal goal by Di María: Rafa, who assisted, started from a legal position and the Argentine was behind the ball.
40’– Entry from behind, very hard and very negligent, by Jota Silva on Rafa. The infraction was well sanctioned with a warning.
45+1’– Musa’s shot deflected off Villanueva’s right arm, leaving later on his goal line. Even though the ball touched the so-called ‘prohibited zone’ of his body, the Venezuelan had his back turned, in a defensive position and did nothing to infringe.
46’– Goal by Aursnes, on the reload from João Mário, saved by Varela. The Portuguese midfielder was in a legal position (36 cms) when Rafa passed him the ball.
60’– Otamendi’s trip over Nélson da Luz was well marked. The centre-back never touched the ball, only the opponent, knocking him down. The bid was correctly sanctioned with a warning for cutting a promising attack. The issue of a clear scoring opportunity (punished with a red card) never came up, because the striker dribbled backwards (in the opposite direction to the red goal), was down to the right and had several opponents at his side, with the possibility of a ‘double’.
77’– Goal well disallowed for Vitória, after timely intervention by VAR: Nélson da Luz finished after the ball was played by his left arm. Even if this action were involuntary, the move would have to be disallowed, because no player can score under these circumstances. Note for the risky approach of Samuel Soares at the opponent’s feet, which seemed irrelevant in the face of his irregular conclusion.
79’– Yellow well shown to Handel after a negligent tackle on Rafa.
89’– Bah’s court went to the hands of Samuel Soares, who grabbed the ball. The referee read it right: there was no deliberate delay by the Dane.
90+4’– Afonso Freitas ostensibly grabbed João Victor, preventing his progression in an unsportsmanlike manner. You have been well warned.
90+7’– The initial feeling was that Afonso Freitas deliberately took his body and arm in the direction of the ball, to intercept it irregularly. Then the lack of volumetry would be irrelevant. But with the subsequent images it was noticed that the defender rotated his body and raised his right arm to protect himself from the possible impact and/or try to cut the shot in a legal way. At the exact moment of contact, the arm was bent and glued to the Guimarães’ body. The technical annulment of the penalty was correct, despite not being a clear and obvious move for VAR. Note: the dropped ball was the correct restart, because for the referee, the moment of ‘ball/arm’ contact was what determined the decision to signal the alleged infraction. The materialization of the interruption (whistle) already occurred with the ball out of the field of play, but the spirit that prevails is that of the moment when Nuno Almeida effectively wanted to intervene.
2023-09-02 23:56:04
#Duarte #Gomes #analysis #BenficaV #cases #Guimaraes #League
