Gaciba sees a foul in Luiz Henrique and says that LDU’s goal against Botafogo should not be canceled due to offside, despite the rule (?!): ‘The field decision was supposed to be validated anyway’

In a long discussion on ESPN’s “Sportscenter” program, the sports commentator arbitration Leonardo Gaciba explained the cancellation of the goal LDU over the Botafogoat Libertadores, due to offside. He explained how the rule works, in which the goal should not be validated, but in the end he argued that the field interpretation should have been followed.

Gaciba, however, also recalled that there was a lack of Luiz Henrique at the beginning of the play.

Read how Leonardo Gaciba’s dialogue with the presenter went Abel Neto:

Gaciba: – Every year they change the concepts, which is why people don’t understand. Let’s do it by steps. Firstly, there is the player’s offside position after the header hits the post. He was in front of the ball line, in an offside position. His header hits the post, the ball comes back and that player takes part in the play. There was a post, three Botafogo players without control, and he caught it. None of the Botafogo players have control over their movements.

Abel: – I disagree. The last player, 22, Damian Suárez, tries to kick the ball, has a technical error and influences the play. In my humble opinion. I could be wrong. There is an abyss between the ball deflecting and you trying to participate and making a mistake. For me, it’s a technical error. I am wrong? If I am, I won’t say anything more and I apologize.

Gaciba: – You’re not wrong, but they change it every year without changing what’s written in the rule. She never changed, she always talked about deflected ball or playing deliberately. What changes is the explanation of what it is to play deliberately. Today, what counts for referees is to have total control over the movements. Last year, if the player chose to play, went towards it, kicked the ball, it would be a new origin. This year you have to have total control over the movements. As the ball comes at speed, he tries to play, but he doesn’t have total control, the guideline is to consider deflection. Three deflections in the play, which makes the move even crazier.

Abel: – I understand that the goal was correctly disallowed, but the world arbitration commission and FIFA are saying that when the guy can’t control the ball he didn’t participate. They say he didn’t have total control, he tried to dominate and couldn’t. And that? If so, correctly cancelled. But for me it’s absurd.

Gaciba: I find it completely absurd. I’ll remember Palmeiras x Vasco last year, player alone in the area, takes a step outside the area because he wanted to, the Arbitration Committee says he didn’t have full control of the movements. There it was. Wrong. Here we consider that the player is playing instinctively, he has not mastered the movements. A similar move happened in Santos x Guarani on Monday. The Guarani player, even though the ball is coming at medium speed, tries to open his leg, the ball hits his leg. He doesn’t actually shoot, he puts his foot out to block. It’s a very similar play. This is gaining advantage from the offside position after the deflection. It’s not just a pass, it’s a ball passed or touched by an attacker, you can’t be in an offside position and participate in the game.

Abel: – To say that the Guarani player had no control over the movement is absurd. He stretches his leg, influences, but due to the new rule he didn’t have control over the movement.

Gaciba: – I agree with you. Botafogo fans won’t like this, but this goal is to validate the field’s decision anyway. If the referee needs to call an assistant to interpret, what is clear and obvious about that? If we need an arbitration commentator to explain whether it is a deviation or a new origin, what is clear and obvious? If it’s going to impact ten minutes, it’s maximum interference and minimum benefit. Botafogo fans think it’s wonderful that the goal was disallowed, but let’s forget the color of the shirt, I’m talking about the play. It is not conceivable to spend ten minutes in VAR. Why didn’t you observe and call for a possible foul (on Luiz Henrique) at the origin of the play? It killed in ten seconds. For me, it takes a hit, it really intercepts.