Anderson Daronco’s refereeing performance in Palmeiras’ victory over Ceará, yesterday (30), at Castelão, for the 20th round of the Brazilian Championship, displeased both sides. While the alviverdes question Danilo’s penalty in Vina, the alvinegros ask for a penalty from Gustavo Gómez in Mendoza.
The first controversial move took place at the end of the first half, in a dispute between Gómez and Mendoza in the middle of the penalty area. Fans saw a penalty, but Daronco and VAR agreed the move was legal.
The penalty scored for Ceará was scored in the 34th minute of the second stage. Daronco saw Danilo foul Vina on the side of the area and pointed to the center. VAR agreed with the field decision and did not call the gaucho to review the bid on the edge of the field.
The performance of the referee displeased, and a lot, the direction of Palmeiras. In a press conference after the game, football director Anderson Barros harshly criticized Daronco and demanded a strong position from the CBF on Brazilian arbitration. Last week, President Leila Pereira was at the CBF headquarters precisely to talk about arbitration.
“We had, today, an extremely complicated, delicate refereeing by Anderson Daronco. These are situations that are extremely common in our football. We have a great product in our hands, and, somehow, we are managing to reduce its value”, said Barros. .
To UOL Esporte, four former referees analyzed both bids. All pointed out refereeing error in penalty on Vina. The bid between Gustavo Gómez and Mendoza divided opinions.
Danilo x Vina
Ceará scored its only goal in the game after Danilo’s penalty was awarded in Vina. After cutting Palmeiras’ midfielder, the forward fell in the area and Daronco scored the penalty, converted by Mendoza.
Former referee Alfredo Loebeling classified the marking as “a shame”, as it is a “natural” dispute between the players.
“The penalty scored for Ceará is a shame. It was nothing. A body move. Natural”, he evaluated.
Carlos Eugênio Simon followed the same path: “Vina touches the ball and in the dispute with the opponent ends up falling. There’s a contact, but it’s not an infraction. It wasn’t a penalty.”
Already Edilson Pereira de Carvalho believes that Vina “played” after contact with Danilo. “I didn’t think it was a penalty in favor of Ceará, player leaves the body, gives up the dispute of the ball, and plays”.
José Aparecido criticized Daronco for not reviewing the bid in VAR.
“The penalty that was awarded did not happen, although the referee was close. His conviction was such that he preferred to forgo the VAR consultation, in order to better judge the game itself.”
The referee, however, can only go to the monitor if the booth disagrees with the field decision.
Gomez vs Mendoza
The dispute in the area between Gustavo Gómez and Mendoza, on the other hand, generated differences between the referees. While Loebeling, Simon and Edilson stated that they would aim for the center of the area, José Aparecido saw no irregularity in the bid.
“The supposed unmarked penalty didn’t really happen”, opined José Aparecido. Simon, on the other hand, pointed to Captain alviverde’s push: “Penalti”.
Edilson highlighted that Gómez is an “old acquaintance of arbitration” and saw a lack in the dispute with the striker of Vozão.
“This one, a penalty in favor of Ceará, this defender from Palmeiras, an old acquaintance of refereeing, very truculent in almost every move. In this, a foul, and a foul inside the area is a penalty”
Finally, Loebeling saw “compensation” from Daronco in the play between Vina and Danilo after failing to score the penalty in Mendoza.
“I think that Daronco scored precisely because he didn’t score the one in the first half, which is a scandalous penalty. The referee is lost. It was a compensatory penalty”, he added.