sport

FilGoal | News | Clattenburg analyzes the second round of the league: Zakaria Al-Wardi deserved expulsion… and Ghazl El-Mahalla goal was canceled

The Egyptian Referees Committee published a video clip of Mark Clattenburg, the head of the committee, analyzing the most prominent arbitration decisions that took place in the second round of the Egyptian Premier League.

The video also witnessed a recording of what was said between the video referees and the arena referees during the time they made their decisions in those cases.

Al Masry x Pyramids

Walid El Karti, a player from Pyramids, was shown a direct red card after blocking Elias Al Jalassi, who was on his way to the goal.

The referee of the match issued the yellow card to Al Karti, but after being summoned by the video referees, he found that the violation deserved the red card.

“The referee awarded a free kick and a yellow card to stop a promising attack after a defender had deliberately grabbed an opponent,” Clattenburg said.

He added, “The video referee reviewed the case because there was a denial of a real opportunity to score a goal and recommended a field review of the referee to recommend a red card.”

He continued, “The referee, after review, changed his original decision. I agreed with the video referee in the red card because the striker runs towards the goal and none of the defenders can catch up with him, and this is a real and clear opportunity to score a goal.”

Ceramic × Zamalek

Ceramica Cleopatra players demanded that the second yellow card (red) be shown in the face of Zamalek player Zakaria Al-Wardi after interfering with Mohamed Metwally “Kanaria”, but the match referee was satisfied with calculating the violation.

Clattenburg said: “The yellow card that the Zamalek player received for recklessness and late competition with his opponent, and after several minutes the same player committed another mistake without receiving any disciplinary punishment.”

“I expected that this player would receive a second yellow card for this challenge because it was done quickly and recklessly against the feet of his opponent,” he added.

He continued, “The video referee under the protocol cannot interfere with the second yellow card, so he was not able to call the referee in this case.”

Ghazl El Mahalla x Ismaily

The referee of the Ghazl El-Mahalla and Ismaili match canceled a goal scored by Abdel Rahman Atef, the Mahalla striker, for committing a foul against Mohamed Fawzy, the Dervish goalkeeper.

“The referee awarded a goal after the attacker and goalkeeper competed for the ball inside the penalty area and before the ball entered the goal,” Clattenburg said.

He continued, “The video referee reviewed the case and recommended the referee to review, and the referee reviewed the case and changed his decision to calculate the goal into a free kick for the defending team.”

He continued, “I agreed with the video referee recommending a field review because the competition from the attacker against the goalkeeper was unfair and limited his ability to save the ball from entering the goal.”

Future × The Arab Contractors

The match referee awarded a penalty kick in favor of Future after his player Saad Samir was pulled from the shirt, after returning to the video technology.

“The referee allowed play to continue after two players competed for the ball after it was played inside the penalty area,” Clattenburg said.

And he continued, “The video referee reviewed the case and recommended the referee to review the field for the possibility of a penalty kick, and therefore the referee changed his original decision after reviewing the case.”

He stressed, “I agree with the video referee in calculating the penalty kick because he clearly grabbed and pulled the striker’s shirt to prevent him from receiving the ball, and the warning was correct.”

Farco × Border Guard

The match referee awarded a penalty kick in favor of the border guards after blocking the team’s striker, Omar Bassam, but he retracted his decision and awarded a violation from outside the area after the intervention of the video referee.

“The referee awarded a penalty kick after two players competed for the ball, the video referee reviewed the situation and recommended that the referee change his decision because the error occurred outside the penalty area,” Clattenburg explained.

He concluded, “The referee changed his original decision without referring to the review area because it is a decision with a real location. I agreed with the video referee because the defender obstructed his opponent outside the penalty area, so it should be considered a free kick and not a penalty kick.”

Zamalek × Smouha

The match ended with Zamalek winning by two goals in return.

In the second half, Zamalek player Ahmed Mostafa “Zizou” fell into the penalty area after a contact with Ahmed Hakam and demanded a penalty kick.

The video referee informed the referee, Nader Qamar Al-Dawla, of the possibility of a penalty kick due to friction between the player Smouha and Zizou.

After watching the clip, the referee told the video referee that the player’s hand is in its normal position, the friction is simple and there is no penalty kick.

“The Referees Committee agrees with the referee’s decision to continue playing because the striker fell in search of a penalty by lightly touching his shoulder,” Clattenburg said.

Related Articles

Back to top button