Even 'AS' and 'MARCA' saw the 'robbery' of the referee and the VAR against Barça against PSG!

In the football, does not live of suppositions, but of way very speculative, always arises the doubt of What had happened if it had not occurred this? Precisely this interrogante goes back perfectly planteable when seeing the final result of the commitment between the FC Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain (1-4), a clash that could think had a before and an after a concrete fact: the questionable expulsion of Ronald Araújo.

This is not simply palabrería if it values how went the previous actions to the expulsion of the charrúa to the minute 29. The Barcelona cast was winning 1-0 and managing the advantage of optimum way, without sobresaltos in the game. Nevertheless, with this unlucky expulsion, the meeting practically went to rack and ruin, with a Barça that with 10 players could not fix them in front of a PSG that took advantage of his numerical advantage to do estragos against the picture culé.

Why the infringement of Ronald Araújo is debatible?

However, separating the development of the party, there is an unquestionable fact that opens the door to the debate: really it was so rigorous the action of Ronald Araújo as to be expelled? A controversy that can arise from the fact that, although there was a clear demolish of the Uruguayan defender on Bradley Barcola, perhaps have not valued an important appearance in this type of played, as it is the intentionality.

This bases in the fact that the native de Rivera did a first effective contact to create annoyance in the left extreme Frenchman, but finished demolishing it when falling because of the impulse that brought in his career, where any movement can be reason of desestabilización. It valued the collegiate Romanian the principle to cut a flagrant action of danger being the last man? Another questionable point, all a cumulus of things that definitely gives place to deliberations if it was or no a fault merecedora of the hardest sanction.

From 'ACE' and 'MARK' also have doubts on the sanction of this fault

In this sense, several media, between them 'ACE' and 'MARK', have allowed elaborate the same debate, establishing a clear conclusion: no, there was not infringement. For example, from 'ACE', that explains between his analysts with the collegiate Eduardo Iturralde González, has allowed explain why, in his opinion, the fault did not have to be sanctioned. "It is a played where Araújo puts him the hand above the shoulder to the Parisian forward in the dispute of the balloon, and this leaves fall. For me, there is not fault any", limited.

Now, from 'MARK', his referee's analyst, Pavel Fernández, practically has had a quite similar criterion to the of Iturralde González to back the fact that, on no account, was infringement. "If Kovacs pita the fault has to expel it, is the last man. The doubt is, was lacking? The Uruguayan only puts him the arm in the shoulder, that is the reason of the demolish? For me no", aseveró.

Under this premise, both specialists agree in that if the referee has seen the infringement, what proceeds is to take out directly the red card, under the criterion to be the last defender. Nevertheless, tombos put in cloth of trial the veracity of this infringement, a subject that promises to generate debate during several days more.