The decision split opinions, and it’s easy to see why. The first contact looked to be outside the box, then there was a second clip from the other leg that took the player down inside the area. If the first touch had wiped him out, the second wouldn’t matter. Trouble is, he wasn’t floored by that initial touch, so you can argue the advantage carried through and the contact in the box is the crucial one.

The contact sequence

Look closely and you’ll see a simple but awkward sequence. First touch, outside. Second touch, inside. The debate is whether the first contact nullified the run or whether the player stayed on his feet long enough for the second contact to be decisive. To be fair, that distinction is subtle. It’s not always obvious in real time — and that’s where the confusion starts.

Referee hesitation and VAR

What frustrates me most is the lack of a clear decision from the man on the pitch. He didn’t seem to think it was a foul at the moment, which left VAR to step in. VAR then spent around four minutes on it, which told us one thing: it wasn’t a slam-dunk. After the check we were left with the same uncertainty. That waiting makes it worse — you want clarity, not a long pause followed by a shrug.

Penalty, red card, or nothing?

On balance I’d say it probably should have been given. He’s grazed outside the box and then brought down by a contact in the area, and there’s an argument that the second contact is the match-defining one. Equally, I can understand why officials went the other way. If officials don’t feel certain, they’ll leave play as it is. But if you’re going to deny a penalty, you can’t then shrug off the fact the player was in the act of shooting when he went down — that’s the kind of moment that leaves supporters seething. Not perfect, not clear, and not the sort of decision that inspires confidence.

To be honest, these calls will always split fans. We just want consistency and decisive refereeing. Is that too much to ask?

Written by TommyGunxxx: 27 February 2026

Tags: opinion