The red card for Vadis Odjidja was one of the most talked about phases of the past football weekend. In the Extra Time studio, no one thought the suit of the card for the AA Gent player was correct, what’s more, they couldn’t make sense of the Referee Department’s explanation.
Vadis Odjidja came into a duel with Tapsoba during the match against Standard with his foot on his leg. After a VAR intervention, he got red.
“This is in the walking movement,” says Peter Vandenbempt. “By the way, what is Lardot explaining to Odjidja when he gives that card? He apologizes? That’s weird, isn’t it.”
Gert Verheyen: “Every photo they see of a foot on one leg is red. But this is a phase that you can really only judge in the live. Every image you take afterwards makes it worse.”
That explanation is only there to delight us with nice statistics after the season. This now comes in the column with correct VAR interventions.
After the weekend, an explanation from the Referee Department also follows. The verdict: It wasn’t a red card, but they did expect a VAR intervention as a potentially serious incident was not seen by the referee.
“Isn’t that against the principle of the VAR?”, says Peter Vandenbempt. “Surely the VAR should only intervene if it is convinced that it is red and the referee has not seen it? Now I am not with it anymore. I don’t understand.”
Joos: “That explanation is only there to delight us in June with fantastic statistics. This does not add to the “oops, the VAR was wrong” moments. This is now a dash in the column with correct VAR moments. “
Vandenbempt: “Laforge must have thought it was red then.”
Joos: “If you send someone to the screen, then you know that it already gives a psychological indication to the referee. He then thinks: “Ah, I was wrong”. You have to be a huge guts to counter that. go. And they aren’t.”
In that same match, there was also an error by Tapsoba on Hanche-Olson. He was booked for stepping on the ankle. Vandenbempt: “A lot of red cards have already been given for this and there is something to be said for that.”
Was it red for Vanaken? “The difference with Vanzeir is that he had possession of the ball”
Another notable stage was Hans Vanaken’s blow in the face of Michael Frey. That phase passed silently. Vanaken got off without a map.
“We hardly said anything about it in our commentary because I didn’t feel that anything serious had happened there or that it was an aggressive act,” says Gert Verheyen. “It was certainly not red, if necessary yellow.”
Last week there was a lot to do about the battle of Dante Vanzeir. Isn’t this the same? “That was really a blow with the fist. That opponent was also half dead,” says Goots.
Although there was some doubt about the latter. Joos: “He will be the first boxer who was unconscious until afterwards. Weird.”
Joos: “Yeah, yellow should have been here too. He does hit, if you hold someone off, you do it with your left arm in this case. The big difference with Vanzeir is that he is in possession of the ball. You are working with the ball and you don’t know where that adversary is his face.”
Goots: “I don’t think it was conscious.”
