Atalanta and Roma do battle over ‘absurd’ VAR decisions

Mile Svilar and Roma coach Gian Piero Gasperini insisted Giorgio Scalvini’s ‘absurd’ Atalanta goal should’ve been disallowed, while La Dea contested why Gianluca Scamacca’s goal was chalked off.

Atalanta won 1-0 in Bergamo this evening with Scalvini bundling a corner over the line from six yards after Svilar fumbled.

The footage was analysed for quite a while by VAR, but given the all-clear, as if anyone was impeding the Roma goalkeeper, then it was his Roma teammate Devyne Rensch rather than Scalvini.

Suggestions of handball were also rejected, as it bounced in off his chest.

“It is very clear for all to see, and it prompts serious doubts on the performance of the VAR,” Gasperini told DAZN.

“Looking at the footage, that is an absurd goal to give considering the rules right now. It’s not possible to give it when looking at this. We were waiting for three minutes, so seeing that footage, there is no explanation for why it wasn’t disallowed.

“You can’t change the rule every time. There are two reasons to disallow it, one is the arm on the goalkeeper, the second is the handball from the player who scores. It’s totally inexplicable. It’s absurd.”

Svilar himself also insisted it was a foul, even after former goalkeeper Walter Zenga in the Sky Sport Italia studio explained to him why the impediment was caused by Rensch and not Scalvini.

“I understand that, but I both felt something on my arm and then behind my head. In my view, when the goalkeeper is touched in the six-yard box, it is always a foul,” said the shot-stopper.

DAZN refereeing pundit Luca Marelli called the Scalvini incident a “classic grey area” because “Svilar was impeded by Rensch, but it’s also true that Scalvini had both hands on the goalkeeper’s face before touching the ball. For this, I would’ve disallowed the goal. There is no handball, however.”

Meanwhile, Atalanta coach Raffaele Palladino confessed he still didn’t understand why the second Atalanta goal was disallowed.

Scamacca scored, but following a very long VAR review, the referee was sent for the On-Field Review and disallowed it for an active offside position.

However, arguably Scamacca did not challenge Mario Hermoso to win back the ball after coming from an offside position, because Hermoso’s poor first touch knocked it into the striker’s path.

It is therefore easier to suggest that Hermoso’s touch put Scamacca back in play and the offside in midfield was irrelevant.

“I would’ve still disallowed the goal, because Scamacca took advantage of being in an offside position and actively participated in the move,” insisted DAZN refereeing pundit Marelli.

Sky Sport Italia pundits, on the other hand, were against the decision to disallow this goal.