The judge denies having used the big screen – VG

–

– It is my job as a match leader to decide whether it is inside or outside. First I assume it is outside, and thus I blow a free kick. Then a few seconds pass, where we spend some time calming down. When we get control, assistant judges are clear that the situation is within, and thus we conclude with punishment.

The referee was absent from the assistant referee twice. The first time he stood by the free kick decision, while round number two made him change his position.

– Is he not clear that it is punishment, even the first time you talk to him?

– There are some frameworks around that mean that we do not get everything that is said. It is only when we get control of the situation and the players are gone that I get a clear message that we need a few extra seconds and that there is talk of a misdemeanor inside.

– So he does not report it immediately?

– No, I can not bring it with me.

It was just before the break that the dramatic situation at Intility Arena arose.

Molde player Martin Ellingsen got a little touch from Ivan Näsberg and went to the ground. Judge blew, but pointed to the outside va 16-meter. This led to large protests from the Molde camp, which pointed to the reruns that rolled across the big screen.

Molde player Eirik Ulland Andersen quickly pointed to the big screen when the referee first marked for a free kick, and was rewarded with the yellow card.

– He encouraged me to look at the screen, and it is unsportsmanlike conduct, the judge explains.

Ulland Andersen himself was unsure whether he actually pointed to the screen in the heat of the match.

– I’m actually unsure if I do. In that case, it’s all right, but I think the situation is so important and crucial that the judge should tolerate that we protest. In that situation, he can show some discretion, says Ulland Andersen to VG.

– What does he say about the card when he changes his mind?

– Then he does not really want to talk. It is difficult to know what assessments were made, but right should be right.

The referee had no doubts and he gave a penalty in favor of VIF. Dag-Eilev Fagermo was completely clear in his speech: This was never a penalty kick, he believes.

– It is not possible to disagree with that when you see the pictures. We see pictures both from behind and from the side, so the cloak Ellingsen says he gets does not exist, says Fagermo to VG.

– He probably says that to get more control, he quickly adds.

Molde captain Magnus Wolff Eikrem and Fagermo clearly disagreed in the interview with Discovery + after the match. Facing VG, he still stands his ground.

– I think their punishment was cheap too, so I think it is which blue eyes see, which decides what you mean. But when the referee first judges, it is at least a penalty and not a free kick, Wolff Eikrem says to VG.

Molde player Ellingsen – who scored the controversial penalty kick – is aware that the referee team did the right thing when they changed their minds.

– I felt a clear touch, which makes me stretch my legs. There is no doubt, and I give the judge clear notice of that. They spent a long time, but they fell on the right decision in the end, says Ellingsen to VG.

He understands that there is a reaction to the fact that the decision was reversed.

– Absolutely. If it’s one of the assistants who gives notice, that’s fine.

It was Henrik Bjørdal who sent Vålerenga in the lead to 1-0 earlier in the round. Also this from the penalty spot, after Ola Brynhildsen was both clumsy and unlucky. There was nothing to say about that penalty kick. The scores from the penalty spot were the only ones of the evening. It ended 1-1 in the capital.

See more statistics for the Elite Series on VG Live.–