The Allianz Stadium in Turin was left in suspense for several minutes, awaiting the VAR assessment of the harsh tackle by Koopmeiners on Anguissa. The Juventus midfielder, in an attempt to get to the ball first and get ahead of the Napoli opponent, ended up hitting him between the calf and ankle. A very dangerous tackle by the Dutchman, who escaped without even receiving a yellow card. A mistake that seemed clear, but which was not the only one in this action. The controversies on the pitch did not end there, as later the black and whites also complained about an alleged penalty, due to the contact between Oliveras and Cabal. In short, the judgment of referee Sozza and the work of VAR did not convince anyone in the Juve-Napoli match.
Koopmeiners intervenes harshly, but no action is taken
Let's start with the episode of Koopmeiners, who first hit Anguissa's calf with the heel of his shoe and then ended up on his ankle. A blow that at first glance seemed like a slight slip, but which left the African footballer lying on the ground, in great pain, causing protests from all the Napoli players. Sozza, who initially did not intervene, consulted the VAR and, after a verification, everything ended without any punitive decision. The intervention was not even punished with a yellow card, which initially seemed inevitable, since it was at least a careless action. The technology ruled out the possibility of a "serious foul", while Koopmeiners was favored by the fact that he had not continued the intervention forcefully until the end.
The double mistake of referee Sozza and VAR
If the red card could have been the subject of evaluation, in this case with a negative outcome, the yellow card seemed necessary, but it was not given. There is another mistake that makes this episode even more controversial: the fact that the game was restarted with a shot on goal, while in fact the ball had been touched by Anguissa.
Marelli, the refereeing expert for DAZN, explained: “The point of contact is very high, it must be said that it is very high. But there is also a fundamental element: Koopmeiners' right leg, which is initially located at the calf, between the knee and the ankle, then slides directly towards the ankle. Therefore, in my opinion, the conditions for a red card do not exist, but a yellow card for carelessness would be more correct. The point is that I believe that he awarded a goal kick, because he apparently saw a deflection of the ball by Koopmeiners, which did not happen.”
Why Olivera's interference against Cabal was not punished with a penalty
A little later, it was Juventus who complained about a contact in the area between Olivera and Cabal. The former, involuntarily, kicked the opponent in the heel, also removing his shoe. The protests of the Bianconeri were fierce, as they insistently requested the award of a penalty. The contact existed and, after the initial non-intervention of the referee Sozza, it was also reviewed by the VAR. The decision? There was no penalty, as the contact was considered insufficient to award such a punishment.
A choice in line with the directives of the designer Orsato, with which this time Marelli also agreed: "It is similar to the contact that occurred in Turin-Como, during the midweek, against Da Cunha, with the difference that Da Cunha was hit completely on the ankle, while here we had more of a light touch on Cabal's heel. From this point of view, I agree with the VAR that did not intervene and that did not punish an intervention of this type with a penalty". To complete the not so convincing evening of referee Sozza and his collaborators in the VAR, Meraviglia and Gariglio, there was also the excessive yellow card for Douglas Luiz, as well as an assessment for Lucumì, who risked receiving a second yellow card after a contact on the verge of a foul against Lucca. As for the red card of Marianucci, there is little to discuss: both yellow cards were fair.
