The play that marked the course of the Colombian soccer final is under the microscope of the experts.

The play that marked the course of the Colombian soccer final is under the microscope of the experts.

The controversy arose hours after the final between Deportes Tolima and Atlético Nacional, which left the latter with a global victory of 4-3, as the champion of the Betplay League.

The day they sent Hernán Darío Herrera to walk to the park Botero Nacional champion: the finals are won (Meluk tells him) Giovanni Moreno and his promise if Nacional were champions: video

A goal by Jarlan Barrera in the last minute of play sentenced a team from Ibagué that came to equalize the series (victory partial 2-0), but never managed to recover from a wasted penalty and the expulsion of the collector, Daniel Cataño.

Precisely, when analyzing, almost frame by frame, that punctual play, the discussion arose: was there invasion of area at the time of collection? should it be repeated? And the answer is yes, in light of the regulations.

(In indigence?: Henry Viáfara: revealing photo of the current state of the former Colombian National Team).

'The penalty had to be repeated'

The play that marked the course of the final of Colombian football Colombian soccer is under the scrutiny of the experts.

“Law 14 in the execution procedure states that if at the moment of collection the defender and the attacker invade, no matter what happens, it must be repeated, that is, whether there is a goal or not. In this case, Mier covered it up and , as the two players shortened the distance, it had to be repeated“, analyst José Borda explained to FUTBOLRED.

And beware that the terms here are not minor details: the repetition of that payment should have been made in advance because, as Borda explains, “the penalty is that the players shorten the distance or get ahead”, which means that at least two of them could take advantage of his position at the moment Cataño hits the ball. It's not area invasion, to be precise.

Now then, why did that play, which was analyzed for the expulsion of the collector at the request of the VAR, not find that previous infraction?

“This action is the responsibility of the referee, since the VAR can only intervene if one of those who shortens the distance interferes, that is, touches the ball and/or scores the goal,” said the analyst. Like neither Danovis Banguero nor Juan Fernando Caicedo Which means that the one who missed it was Andrés Rojas, who never realized what was happening in the Mier area.

Unfortunately, the mistake hurt Tolima, although it is worth saying that no one noticed on the field, no one made the claim as National did for the foul on Mier that ended up in the red to Cataño, with which everything indicates that it will not go beyond a complaint to the Commission for an error Refereeing.

More news The Colombian National Team returns to the ring: confirmed debut of Néstor Lorenzo HBO Max: mockumentary narrates the longest tennis match in history Mike Tyson says what Evander Holyfield's ear tasted like Iga Swiatek makes history : amazing record in 21st century tennis