A Surgical Marciniak: The 5 Controversial Decisions That Eliminated Barça

The referees Szymon Marciniak (Poland) and Dennis Higler (Netherlands) had a very controversial performance in the second leg of the UEFA Champions League semi-final between Inter Milan and FC Barcelona (4-3).

For the most part, the refereeing errors harmed a Barça that, despite this and going into halftime down by two goals, was only two minutes away from qualifying for their first final of the Champions League in the last decade.

Next, we review one by one the five controversial actions that tipped the balance against the 'azulgrana' team at the Giuseppe Meazza. As Hansi Flick said in the post-match press conference: every controversy always favored the Italians.

🥅Acerbi's Handball Inside the Area Not Reviewed

The first controversial action of the match occurred in the 25th minute. After a clear arrival of Barça on the right, a shot by Dani Olmo hit the left hand of central defender Francesco Acerbi, but Marciniak considered that the ball, although it touched the defender's arm, occurred after a previous rebound between the turf and his torso. The VAR, on this occasion, did not call the Pole to review the play.

⚽Very Dubious Penalty by Cubarsí on Lautaro 

Then, on the edge of halftime, the VAR did intervene to sanction a penalty by Pau Cubarsí on Lautaro Martínez. The '2' of 'culé' slid to avoid the shot of the Argentine striker and, although he got to touch the ball first, Marciniak, who initially had given the right to the Catalan, changed his mind after reviewing the play on the monitor, after a call from the VOR room.

Finally, Hakan Çalhanoglu took charge of the penalty, deceiving Szczesny with a crossed shot. Thus, Inter went to halftime with a 2-0 partial.

❌Clear Penalty Annulled by Mhitaryan on Lamine

The most serious error, without a doubt, came in the 68th minute. Mkhitaryan knocked down Lamine Yamal inside the area in a foul that caused the Armenian footballer to be booked. The main referee did not hesitate to sanction the penalty and book the '22' of Inter. However, the call from the VAR made the Polish judge reverse his decision.

And it is that, after the warning from the Dutch Dennis Higler in the VOR room, Marciniak went to see the action on the monitor. The referee chose to signal the foul on the edge of the area, considering in the first instance a previous touch on the supporting foot of the 'culé' winger, although the entry that caused the fall of the '19' 'culé' occurred on the line of the area.

In this regard, the IFAB rules establish that the lines that delimit the areas (including the small area and the penalty spot) are part of the entire goal area. That is, when sanctioning a penalty, if an infraction occurs on the line of the large area, it is appropriate to sanction a penalty.

Regarding the intervention of the VAR in the penalty on Lamine:

• The VAR protocol establishes that the review of penalties is carried out only when there is a clear, obvious and manifest error by the referee in objective decisions, such as the exact location of the infraction (inside or outside the area) that entails a penalty. In particular, if the referee sanctions a penalty for a foul that actually occurred outside the area, the VAR can intervene to correct that decision, since it is a geographical error that can be verified objectively with the images. In that sense, the protocol allows two forms of review in these situations:

• Direct review for geographical error: The referee accepts the indication of the VAR without needing to go to the monitor. For example, when a penalty signaled was outside the area or when a foul inside the area was not sanctioned as a penalty.

• Review on the field: In less clear or subjective cases, the referee can go to the review area to see the images before making the final decision.

• In addition, the protocol emphasizes that the initial decision of the referee will only be modified if the review clearly demonstrates a manifest error. Therefore, it is possible to reverse an initial error if the foul that originated the penalty occurred outside the area, since it is considered an objective and clear error that the VAR can correct. In the case of the action of the penalty of Mkhitaryan on Lamine, unfortunately, the VAR influenced in an erroneous way, reversing a correct initial error.

🟡Possible Foul by Dumfries on Gerard Martín Prior to 3-3

In the 90+3', Inter managed to equalize the match and the tie thanks to a goal by Acerbi. The Italian central defender took advantage of a cross from Denzel Dumfries from the right, after the Dutchman stole the ball from Gerard Martín.

The Barça full-back claimed a foul by the Inter winger, but Marciniak considered that the entry was clean. Certainly, Martín fell asleep on the exit, but there was a touch of Dumfries on the left leg of the 'culé' full-back that could well be considered a foul.

However, neither the linesman nor the VAR signaled absolutely anything. Inter sent the match to extra time and, thanks to a goal by Davide Frattesi in the 99th minute, advanced to the Champions League final.

🔴Recital of Fouls Against Lamine Yamal

Lamine Yamal, receiving a foul from Federico Dimarco in the Inter-Barça (4-3)

Another striking aspect of Szymon Marciniak's work was the number of fouls overlooked on Lamine Yamal. Dimarco only took four minutes to commit his first infraction on the '19', who in total received at least a dozen kicks, pulls and pushes from rival players.

However, in 120 minutes, the main referee only sanctioned 7 fouls on the player from Mataró, 3 of them punished with a yellow card (to Mkhitaryan, Carlos Augusto and Bastoni).

Finally, Barça left the Giuseppe Meazza empty-handed after a great match in which, in addition to deserving better luck, they also did not have a refereeing performance worthy of a Champions League semi-final.