Inter's victory in Venice allowed the Nerazzurri to overtake Lazio at the top of the table, but the match ended under the microscope for an episode that is expected to fuel controversy over refereeing decisions. At the center of the debate is the contact between Carlos Augusto and Sohm, which led to the Nerazzurri's first goal at the "Penzo" stadium. Referee Pairetto did not punish the interference, but above all, no signal came from the VAR room, where Camplone and Volpi were.
The final result registered the victory of Inter, but did not eliminate the doubts about a decision that deserved to be reviewed. It is not the first case in this first half of the season when VAR remains out of the game, despite a clear error in the assessment made on the pitch. If such an episode is repeated every week of the championship, then the situation requires serious attention.
Carlos Augusto vs. Sohm: the foul that changed the action
The dynamics of the episode are quite clear: Carlos Augusto rushes towards Sohm, hits him with his body and, with his left foot, touches the opponent's right foot. The Venezia midfielder stumbles just as he is trying to intervene. Thus, Zielinski manages to intervene and continue the action from which the advantage goal for the black and blues arises.
The question is not whether every contact should be penalized. In football, physical duels are part of the game and the referee must distinguish between regular tackles and those that deserve a penalty. In this case, however, the contact seems decisive: Sohm is prevented from interfering and loses the opportunity to compete for the ball. Pairetto allows play to continue, while the VAR does not intervene to call him to the monitor.
The assessment of former referee Luca Marelli, DAZN expert, is sharp and does not leave much room for interpretation: "Carlos Augusto's touch before Venezia's first own goal? The advantage goal for the nigre comes from an attack and a duel between the Brazilian and Sohm. The Inter player does not touch the ball, but touches the opponent's calf and pulls down his sock. In any case, he collides with the player with his body and prevents him from opposing the ball that was heading towards Barella. This is a clear foul and it is not explained why the VAR does not intervene, because it is precisely from this action that Inter's goal comes. There is a clear foul by Carlos Augusto and the fact that Pairetto was in a position to see and evaluate it does not change this.
"I've been on the pitch myself: you can form an impression during the match and then, when you review the foul, ask yourself how you could have been wrong. That can happen, but VAR was created precisely to avoid mistakes of this kind. An on-screen review (OFR) and a free kick for Venezia were needed. Moreover, a yellow card was also needed."
Have they decided to turn off VAR in Serie A?
As has happened in recent weeks with the fouls on Marcus Thuram, the two missed penalties against Bologna and Fiorentina, and other episodes where a review of the footage would have been useful, VAR has been left out. The risk is that the system will lose credibility precisely at the moments when it should show its value and usefulness.
Video assistant referees were created to correct obvious errors, but now it seems to be no longer fulfilling this function. Although this is not the most serious episode in absolute terms, after ten weeks of the championship the referees seem to be in confusion again. Daniele Orsato has always hinted that, upon taking over as head of referees, he would put them back at the centre of the game and limit VAR interventions. However, the current impression is that the video assistant system has been drastically silenced.
Talking about a VAR that is “off” is provocative, but it expresses the frustration of those who expect the technology to serve to correct such mistakes. The problem is not that referees can make mistakes, but that, when they have the tools to correct the mistake at their disposal, they decide not to use them. And at that point, the question is always the same: what is the purpose of VAR if, in the face of a possible and obvious foul, it remains silent?
