Wednesday, October 27

The judge denies using the big screen


VALLE (VG) (Vålerenga – Molde 1–1) Vålerenga raged against the decision to penalize Molde just before half-time. After the match, referee Mohammad Aslan denied using the big screen as an aid.

Aftenposten collaborates with VG-sporten. Therefore, as a reader of Aftenposten, you also get articles and services created by VG.

– Which is displayed on the big screen, I do not have an overview. We are the assistant referee and I who make the decision, Aslan tells VG.

Explain the incident this way:

– It is my job as party leader to decide whether it is inside or outside. First I assume it is outside and therefore I shoot a free throw. Then a few seconds pass, where we spend a while relaxing. When we take control, the assistant judges are clear that the situation is inside, and thus we conclude with the punishment.

Henrik Bjørdal showed his clear dissatisfaction with Judge Mohammad Aslan.

The referee was absent from the assistant referee twice. The first time he held firm on the free throw decision, while the second round made him change positions.

– Is it not clear to him that it is a punishment, even the first time you speak to him?

– There are some frames around that mean that we do not understand everything that is said. Only when we take control of the situation and the players have left do I get a clear message that we need a few more seconds and there is talk of a minor offense on the inside.

– So you don’t report it right away?

– No, I can’t bring it with me.

Molde’s player Eirik Ulland Andersen quickly took aim at the big screen when the referee first scored a free kick and was rewarded with the yellow card.

– He encouraged me to look at the screen, and it is unsportsmanlike conduct, explains the judge.

also read

Fits the Vålerenga style: – I had seventeen contacts with the ball. It’s damn small

Ulland Andersen himself wasn’t sure if he really pointed to the screen in the heat of the match.

– In fact, I’m not sure if I do. In that case, that’s fine, but I think the situation is so important and crucial that the judge should tolerate us protesting. In that situation, you can show some discretion, Ulland Andersen tells VG.

– What do you say about the card when you change your mind?

– So I really don’t want to talk. It is difficult to know what evaluations were made, but the right thing should be the right thing.

Just before the break, a dramatic situation arose at Intility Arena.

Molde player Martin Ellingsen received a little touch from Ivan Näsberg and went to the ground. Judge blew out, but pointed to the 40-foot outer path. This sparked major protests in the field of Molde, which signaled the reruns that were rolling on the big screen. Eirik Ulland Andersen also received the yellow card for this.

After several obvious t-shirt-pulling incidents, Molde managed to get a reprimand, but Molde’s manager was unhappy.

He made several people react, and the VIF players put pressure on the referee team.

Dag-Eilev Fagermo was quite clear in his speech. This was never a penalty.

– It is not possible to disagree with that when you view the pictures. We see images from both the back and the side, so the layer Ellingsen says he gets doesn’t exist, Fagermo tells VG.

– He probably says that to have more control, he adds quickly.

Molde captain Magnus Wolff Eikrem and Fagermo clearly disagreed in the Discovery + interview after the match. Against VG, he is still holding his own.

– I think his punishment was cheap too, so I think it’s what the blue eyes see that decides what you mean. But when the referee judges first, it is at least a penalty and not a free kick, Wolff Eikrem tells VG.

On the way to the break, VIF captain Jonathan Tollås Nation was highly critical of the way the penalty was awarded.

– What I react to is that we have asked for VAR in the elite series, but this is VAR 2.0. It is quite obvious that they are standing and looking at the screen when it is displayed on repeat. So that makes me curse. But I can’t bear to stand here and talk about it, says Vålerenga captain Jonatan Tollås Nation to Discovery.

– The penalty is clear. The question and problem that is relevant here is: Did the attendee use the big screen to judge you from the inside? I don’t know, but it looked like this, says Eurosport expert Bernt Hulsker on Football Direct.

The Molde Ellingsen player, like Hulsker, is aware that the referee team did the right thing when they changed their minds.

– I felt a clear touch, which made me stretch my legs. There is no question, and I give the judge clear notice of that. It took a long time, but in the end they made the right decision, Ellingsen tells VG.

Understand that there is a reaction to the fact that the decision was reversed.

– Absolutely. If it is one of the attendees who calls, that’s fine.

The director of the event in Vålerenga, Anita Alexandersen, has this to say about why the situation was shown on the big screen.

– It is allowed to show a repetition of all things, but of course we tried to put a poster about controversial situations. I think this was considered uncontroversial, says event director Anita Alexandersen in Vålerenga.

However, you are aware that you do not know in detail what assessments have been made in this case.

It was Henrik Bjørdal who sent Vålerenga ahead 1-0 at the start of the round. Also this from the penalty spot, after Ola Brynhildsen was clumsy and unlucky. There was nothing to say about that penalty.

Both Vålerengas Vidar Örn Kjartansson and Magnus Wolff Eikrem and Martin Ellingsen from Molde played metal in the fast-paced first round at the Intility Arena. The teams entered the locker room at 1-1 position, which was also the final result.

The case is being updated!


www.aftenposten.no

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *