Juventus managed to defeat Parma 2-0, but in the second half, just when the Bianconeri managed to find the goals with Nico Gonzalez and Koopmeiners, in the 77th minute the Emilians asked for a penalty. But what happened? From the stands and also on television, the sliding intervention of Alajbegovic, in the area, against Keita, who ends up on the ground, is very clearly visible. Protest from Parma, but referee Fourneau decides not to award a penalty and the VAR room does not intervene, leaving the decision made on the field to the referee, since it was not a clear and evident error and that moment of the game was considered a case of evaluation: by the field referee himself.
The intervention occurred and the Juventus player touched Keita, but the explanation is different. The interpretation of the referee and VAR seems to have been that they saw Keita's left leg open, as if he wanted to look for the Bosnian's right leg, which slides in a straight trajectory and not in the direction of the Parma player's leg. Luciano Spalletti intervened on this issue, who was invited to give his interpretation of that episode on DAZN.
"It's not a penalty because it's the Parma player who goes and puts his foot next to our player, but now it's Orsato, he explains to you how it works, I no longer risk prison by giving a kiss to a… (in reference to the kiss live on air last year, after Juventus-Lazio, to DAZN journalist Federica Zille, to justify his discussion on the importance of contact in penalty cases) - explains Spalletti -. When it comes to contact… we go back there, but what is this? A collision is a collision, otherwise this is a contact, he's the one who opens his foot, he doesn't even touch it, he's the one who looks for Alajbegovic's foot and in fact they closed the case after a minute".
To everyone, therefore, it might have seemed like an obvious penalty, but according to the assessment made by the referee and the VAR, it is Keita's foot that opens towards Alajbegovic, while the Juventus player does not go towards the opponent. Fourneau certainly did not have the right angle of vision, but the VAR did not intervene, leaving the decision made on the field to the referee. The final conclusion of the contact between the two, therefore, is that the Parma player goes to seek contact with the defender.
VAR could certainly have intervened, as play had resumed. But it did not, apparently considering that the contact between the Parma player and the new Juventus approach did not fall into the category of “clear and obvious foul play”, which according to protocol could justify a VAR call for an on-field review. The action in fact continued amid protests from the Parma bench and players on the pitch.
