On the evening of May 14, the jury of the Referee Committee of the Chinese Football Association conducted the eighth session of the season (20240514). According to the club's complaint opinion, this issue reviewed 8 cases, respectively from the Chinese Super League, the Chinese First League, the Chinese Second League and the Women's Super League. The jury found that there were three mistakes and omissions in judgment.
The current session of the jury still adopts the form of video conference. The members of the discipline inspection and supervision team of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection and the State Supervision Commission stationed in the General Administration of Sport, and the representatives of the authoritative media are invited to attend the meeting as nonvoting delegates. The form of collective discussion and individual comments of the members of the jury is adopted, and the conclusions are as follows:
Case 1: In the 11th round of the Chinese Super League, Chengdu Rongcheng VS Henan Club, in the 67th minute of the game, when Chengdu Rongcheng No. 8 player blocked the other party's shot in his own penalty area, the ball touched his arm. The referee did not award a handball foul on the spot, and VAR did not intervene.
For this case, the jury unanimously agreed that: from the existing video, Chengdu Rongcheng No. 8 arm contacted the ball, but its arm position did not make the body unnaturally larger, which should not be regarded as a handball foul, and the referee made the right decision on the spot that it was not a handball foul.
Case 2: In the 11th round of the Chinese Super League, Chengdu Rongcheng VS Henan Club, in the 71st minute of the game, when the Chengdu Rongcheng No. 23 player received the ball in his own penalty area, the ball was in contact with his arm. The referee did not award a handball foul on the spot, and VAR did not intervene.
For this case, the jury unanimously agreed that: Chengdu Rongcheng No. 23 touched the ball with his arm after the chest stop, and his arm did not move deliberately towards the ball. The position of his arm should be considered as a reasonable and natural position in this case, not a handball foul, and the referee made the correct decision on the spot that it was not a handball foul.
Case 3: In the 11th round of the Chinese Super League, Qingdao Hainiu vs Nantong Zhiyun. In the 16th minute of the game, Qingdao Hainiu No. 10 entered the opponent's penalty area with the ball. Nantong Zhiyun No. 5 made contact with him when defending, and Qingdao Hainiu No. 10 fell down afterwards. The referee did not award a foul on the spot, and VAR did not intervene.
For this case, the review team unanimously agreed that the defensive action of Nantong Zhiyun No. 5 belongs to blocking the other party's shot, touching the ball and not infringing the other party's players. The subsequent physical contact between the two parties is the inevitable contact caused by inertia, and should not be regarded as a foul. The referee on the spot made the right decision not to foul.
Case 4: In the 11th round of the Chinese Super League, Qingdao Manatee VS Nantong Zhiyun. In the 83rd minute of the game, the No. 10 member of Nantong Zhiyun carried the ball, and the No. 16 member of Qingdao Manatee intercepted from his side and rear, and the No. 10 member of Nantong Zhiyun fell to the ground. The referee gave a yellow card (the second yellow card of the player) to Qingdao Hainiu No. 16 for a foul on the spot. Because the foul was outside the penalty area, the referee awarded a direct free kick, and VAR did not intervene.
For this case, the jury unanimously agreed that: the video shows that Qingdao Hainiu No. 16 touches the left calf of Nantong Zhiyun No. 10 in the tackle, and the contact place is outside the penalty area. Qingdao Hainiu No. 16 should be punished for a foul and a direct free kick should be awarded. At the same time, the foul situation meets the judgment of preventing the other side from promising attack, and the foul player should be shown a yellow card. The referee's decision to award a direct free kick on the spot and show a yellow card to Qingdao Hainiu No. 16 was correct.
Case 5: In the 11th round of the Chinese Super League, Qingdao Hainiu vs Nantong Zhiyun. In the 90th minute of the game, Nantong Zhiyun team attacked and passed to the opponent's penalty area. The first assistant referee raised the flag to indicate that the ball had crossed the goal line in the air. The referee delayed whistling. Then the Nantong Zhiyun team completed the header shot, and the ball was kicked out of the fence by Qingdao Hainiu team near the goal line, The referee whistled to stop the match and awarded the goal kick to Qingdao Manatee Team. After VAR intervention and video assistant referee review analysis, the referee revised the Nantong Zhiyun Team's goal and the goal was valid.
For this case, the jury unanimously agreed that: the video of the goal line slot clearly showed that when Nantong Zhiyun Team crossed, the ball did not cross the goal line in the process of running, and the first assistant referee made a mistake in judgment, but the referee used the way of delayed whistling to make the game continue, and then Nantong Zhiyun Team headed the shot, and before the ball was cleared by the Qingdao Hainiu Team, It has crossed the goal line and entered the goal as a whole. The referee team has correctly applied VAR operation, correctly intervened VAR, and the referee has effectively and correctly revised the goal. However, the first assistant referee's relevant judgment is wrong.
Case 6: In the 10th round of the China First League, Nanjing City VS Chongqing Tonglianglong. In the 85th minute of the game, Chongqing Tonglianglong's No. 10 player entered the opponent's penalty area to receive the ball. Nanjing City's No. 1 goalkeeper went out to defend. Chongqing Tonglianglong's No. 10 player fell down, and the referee sentenced Nanjing City's No. 1 goalkeeper to a foul on the spot and a penalty kick penalty.
For this case, the review team agreed that: the existing video could not clearly show whether the players of both sides had physical contact, but Chongqing Tonglianglong No. 10 had made the action of going to the ground voluntarily before the possible physical contact between the two sides, and the Nanjing City No. 1 goalkeeper's attack was free of foul action, and even if the two sides had contact, it was also initiated by the attackers. If the attacking team member has the intention of pretending to be fouled and obtaining a penalty kick, Chongqing Tonglianglong No. 10, the attacking team, shall be judged to be in violation (pretending) and shown a yellow card. Nanjing City Team will resume the game by playing an indirect free kick. The referee made a wrong decision on the spot to award Nanjing City No. 1 goalkeeper a foul and a penalty kick.
Case 7: In the eighth round of the China Second League, Beijing Institute of Technology VS Hubei Youth Star. In the 98th minute of the game, Beijing Institute of Technology No. 5 was fouled by Hubei Youth Star No. 60 goalkeeper in the attack. The referee first judged the foul place outside the penalty area and awarded a direct free kick. After communication with the assistant referee, it was changed to a penalty kick before the game resumed, And show the yellow card to the goalkeeper of Hubei Youth Star No. 60.
As for this case, the review team unanimously agreed that the foul of Hubei Youth Star No. 60 goalkeeper was consistent with the determination of destroying the other party's obvious goal scoring opportunity, and should be shown a red card for penalty. As for the determination of the place of the foul, most members believed that Hubei Youth Star No. 60 goalkeeper should be awarded a direct free kick if he fouled Beijing Institute of Technology No. 5 outside the penalty area when he attacked. The referee made a wrong decision to award a penalty kick on the spot and to show a yellow card. This case also solicited the opinions of authoritative experts in the international referee circle, who also believed that the foul action outside the penalty area should be judged and a red card should be shown.
Case 8: In the seventh round of the Women's Super League, Hainan Qiongzhong Women's Football Team VS Shanghai Rural Commercial Bank Women's Football Team. In the 52nd minute of the game, the No. 39 player of Shanghai Rural Commercial Bank Women's Football Team carried the ball to the other side's penalty area, and the No. 23 player of Hainan Qiongzhong Women's Football Team defended against the foul. The referee first judged that the place of the foul was outside the penalty area, so a direct free kick was awarded. After being prompted by the assistant referee and communicating with the assistant referee, the referee changed it to a penalty kick without showing a red or yellow card.
For this case, most members of the review panel believed that the foul committed by Hainan Qiongzhong Women's Football Team No. 23 outside the penalty area against Shanghai Rural Commercial Bank Women's Football Team No. 39 was the main reason for the latter's falling to the ground, and a direct free kick should be awarded for this foul. In addition, the foul is consistent with the determination of destroying the other party's obvious goal scoring opportunity, and the offending player should be shown a red card for penalty. The referee made a wrong decision to award a penalty kick on the spot and missed a red card.
The Chinese Football Association will continue to adhere to the principles of fairness, impartiality and openness, actively accept the feedback and complaints of the club, and review the key cases as well as the typical cases with high social concern, which are conducive to the unification of the penalty scale, and publish the review results to the society, so as to impose internal punishment on the relevant wrong or missing judges. (End)
