Controversial No-Call Leaves Feyenoord Frustrated
Feyenoord’s home match against FC Utrecht on Sunday ended in a 1-2 defeat, leaving the Rotterdam side questioning a crucial refereeing decision in the first half. A potential penalty for Feyenoord was overlooked by both referee Bas Nijhuis and the VAR, sparking debate about the consistency of officiating.
The incident occured when Santiago gimenez, Feyenoord’s striker, went down in the box after a challenge from Utrecht’s Paxten Aaronson.Gimenez’s shirt was visibly ripped during the encounter, but no penalty was awarded.
This non-call drew immediate criticism from analysts. During ESPN’s “Dit Was Het Weekend,” Kenneth Perez expressed his bewilderment, asking, “What more needs to happen for a penalty to be given? Shoudl they wholly rip his shirt off?” He argued that while the VAR is intended for clear and obvious errors, this incident should have warranted a review.Fellow analyst Kees Kwakman echoed Perez’s sentiments, highlighting the inconsistency in refereeing decisions. He pointed out that similar incidents in the past have resulted in penalty calls, leaving fans and pundits perplexed by the lack of consistency.
Perez suggested that referees may need to regain confidence in making self-reliant decisions. he referenced the recent training camp held before the winter break, where officials discussed various rule interpretations, expressing hope that it would lead to improved officiating. However, he lamented the ongoing confusion surrounding handball rules and the missed penalty call against Utrecht, stating, “Irrespective of whether VAR should have been involved, this was clearly a penalty.”
While Gimenez eventually scored from the penalty spot in the closing stages, it proved to be a consolation goal as Feyenoord fell to Utrecht, who currently sit third in the Eredivisie standings.
Was it a Penalty?Former Referee Johan derksen Weighs In on the Feyenoord Controversy
The football world was abuzz this week following a controversial no-call in Feyenoord’s 1-2 loss to FC Utrecht. A potential penalty for Feyenoord, involving Santiago Gimenez and Utrecht’s Paxten Aaronson, was overlooked by both referee Bas Nijhuis and VAR, sparking a heated debate about officiating consistency.
To shed light on this controversial incident, we sat down with respected former referee and renowned football analyst, Johan Derksen.
Moderator: Johan, thanks for joining us. This incident with Gimenez and Aaronson has generated quite a stir. What’s your take on the non-call?
Derksen: Well, I have to say, it looked like a penalty to me. From the replays, it seems like Aaronson made contact with Gimenez inside the box, and the ripping of Gimenez’s shirt certainly suggests a forceful challenge. The question is, did the referee have a clear view of the incident?
moderator:
That’s exactly the point being debated. Some analysts, like Kenneth Perez and Kees Kwakman, argue that VAR should have intervened, especially given the evident contact and the ripped shirt.
Derksen: I understand their viewpoint. VAR is ther to correct clear and obvious errors. While I don’t think the initial no-call was blatantly wrong, the significant contact and the visual evidence of the ripped shirt could arguably warrant a review.
Moderator:
There’s a growing concern about inconsistency in refereeing decisions.Do you see that as a significant issue in the Eredivisie?
Derksen: Unluckily, inconsistency is a problem we see across all levels of football. It’s human nature, referees make mistakes, and sometimes interpretations can vary.
However, the Eredivisie needs to work towards greater clarity and consistency in applying the rules. Regular training sessions and open discussions, like the one held recently, are a good start, but ultimately, referees need to be confident in their
judgements and make decisive calls.
Moderator:
perez also seemed to suggest that referees might be hesitant to make those decisive calls, perhaps relying too heavily on VAR.
Derksen:
There’s definitely a psychological element to refereeing. Over-reliance on technology can erode a referee’s confidence in their own abilities.
It’s a
balancing act.VAR is a valuable tool,but it shouldn’t become a crutch. Referees need to be empowered to make their own calls on the field.
Moderator:
this incident reignited the debate about handball rules as well. Should those rules be simplified or made clearer?
Derksen:
The handball rule is a beast! It’s incredibly complex, and even seasoned professionals struggle to interpret it consistently.
I believe we need simpler and more clearly defined guidelines.
Football is a game of passion, and constant debate about marginal handball decisions detracts from the enjoyment of the sport.
What are your thoughts, readers? Was the no-call by the referee against Feyenoord justified? Should VAR have intervened? Do you agree with Johan’s insights on refereeing consistency and the complexities of the handball rule? Let us know in the comments below!
