The decision of Cuadra Fernandez to expel Chimy Avila with a direct red card half an hour after the start of the match Villarreal – Betis It has generated a lot of controversy. It is almost unanimously appreciated that the action deserved a yellow card because it was a trip in the center of the field, but the referee justified in his minutes that it was an “entry from behind” to validate a decision that could have conditioned the development of the match. in Ceramics. Despite all this, Pellegrini’s team won 1-2 in a very important step in the classification against a direct rival for the European places.
In this sense, the opinions of several referee specialists from different media outlets were heard and they all agreed that both Cuadra Fernández, on the field, and Pizarro GomezFrom the VAR, they had made a mistake when evaluating this play.
Iturralde Gonzálezon Cadena SER, pointed out the following: «For me it is not expulsion. It’s not his turn. The VAR is going to call him to look at it because it is not an expulsion. Another thing is that he insulted you. It doesn’t hit him. It’s a trip, it’s with the inside. “A referee cannot say that because he is Chimy Ávila I am going to whistle differently.”
Meanwhile, on Cadena Cope it was Pedro Martin the one who analyzed Chimy Ávila’s play and was very forceful. «The gesture is one of tripping, but maybe it adds more strength to the action. That’s not red or full of wine. Yellow for intention. It is a very exaggerated expulsion. We have seen much more exaggerated Chimy actions that have not been red. It’s just a trip. “He was wrong,” he said.
Finally, Pavel Fernandez He is the one in charge of these referee analysis issues at Gol. He is clear that the play is not a red one but he does put some emphasis on Chimy Ávila’s background: “Being a usual suspect has consequences, however, the action does not lead to a red, the VAR should have corrected it without a doubt.”
#referee #specialists #expulsion #Chimy #red #full #wine
