Can the match against Madrid be played again?

The president of FC Barcelona, John Laportaignited controversy in Spain by publishing a video in which he warned of the possibility of claiming something rarely seen: repeat the classic that they lost 3-2 against Real Madrid, last weekend, due to a ghost goal of the young Lamine Yamal, who from his point of view should have been validated. But, within the claim, several aspects open up to be resolved in the situation that takes on the overtones of becoming a novel: How feasible is what the Catalan club is proposing? What documents should I present to dream of a utopian measure? Are there antecedents in your favor?

“If it is confirmed that it was a legal goal, we will go further and ask for a replay of the match.“, was the blunt phrase with which Laporta explained the intention he has as Barcelona’s boss. To do so, he assured: “We will immediately request the Technical Committee of Referees (CTA) and the Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) to provide us with all the images and audio generated by the play.“.

The moment in question that all of Barcelona claims It was practically identical to what happened in the Superclásicowhen the VAR determined that the ball did not completely enter Boca’s goal in what was a goal against Cristian Lema.

In this case, in Spain, when the match was tied 1-1, A goal from striker Lamine Yamal was not validated after goalkeeper Andriy Lunin kept his shot just below the three posts.raising the question of whether number five had crossed the finish line in its entirety.

However, only a few hours had to pass after Laporta’s claim for his first complication to appear on the scene: the diary. Brand he said that The CTA would oppose the demands of the Catalan president since it does not have in mind to provide images of a match to any team. This is a rule that they established since the implementation of the VAR in Spanish football and that until now they strictly complied with.

The spokes in the wheel continue to appear for Barcelona. In case the Committee’s refusal to provide assistance in your lucha against technology was little, several specialists resorted to IFAB (Association in charge of defining the rules in football) to determine the real possibilities of the culé protest prospering.

What does the regulation say? An uninspiring message. “As a general rule, The match will not be invalidated for the following reasons: errors in the operation of VAR technology (as with automatic goal detection or DAG); erroneous decisions in which the VAR has participated (since the VAR is part of the refereeing body); decisions not to review an incident; reviews of non-reviewable situations or decisions.” Clearer, it seems impossible.

However, Barcelona are clinging to what could be their ace up their sleeve. “If it is confirmed that it was a legal goal, We do not rule out asking for a replay of the match, as has happened in a European match due to a VAR error“Yes, despite the rules that seem to go against him, there is jurisprudence that supports Laporta’s intentions.

To resort to the exception to the rule you have to go back to the beginning of the year. A Belgian league match, between Genk and Anderlecht, was involved in controversy when the VAR failed to apply the regulations, pointing out a false invasion of the area in the execution of a penalty. Genk, the injured team, made the claim, which came out in their favor and fulfilled their mission of repeating the match..

Why was the chance to play the duel again supported on that occasion? Because It was considered that the VAR error was due to a violation of rules and not to simple human error.

Time is running out for Barcelona. According to the regulations of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), any type of claim about what happened in a match can be made up to a maximum period of 48 hours after the match has ended. That is, the Catalan club has until Tuesday night (Argentina afternoon) to make its appeal official and take the case to court.

If so, Laporta must adjudicate that the ghost goal de Lamine Yamal was not validated due to a failure in the application of the regulations. The factor that complicates this need is that in the absence in Spain of the clock used by referees with the DAG system (Automatic Goal Detector), the analysis of the action to determine the entry of the ball was carried out by the human eye and not For technology.

Furthermore, Barcelona has the disadvantage that The Disciplinary Committee declares itself incompetent in cases where there is talk of VAR errors.

The only possible way ends up being to file a complaint before the ordinary courts.. In Courts, last season there was a case where Atlético de Madrid considered a goal against Espanyol valid from the desk. To do this, it is mandatory to present evidence that determines the referee’s error, a difficulty that Barcelona has by not having access to the images of the Classic.

Laporta’s claim ends up being closed to a more interpretative question, but he still has not lost the hope of winning what appears to be a new battle against the implementation of the VAR. Meanwhile, on the other side of the road, Real Madrid is confident that the few precedents and the rules established in the regulations do not jeopardize their victory.