Referee commission: There were no wrong decisions even in the 11th round of HNL!

Be yours is justified dosuđen penal against Riversa Ivan Nevistić he touched and tripped Osijek’s attack and thus missed the penalty. That’s an opinion judges’ commission of HNS which on Monday published an analysis of the trial from disputed situations from the 11th round of the HNL. And the second week in a series of judicial analysis, at the head of s Bertrandom Layecomshe did not find fault with the Croatian judges!

We are transmitting the press release of the HNS judges’ commission in its entirety…

Slaven Belupo – Šibenik (25th and 74th minutes); exclusion of the player due to two cautions

25th minute: The referee warned home player no. 30 due to too sharp a start after he let the advantage to the visiting team. According to the KNS HNS guidelines, the warning was mandatory due to an uncontrolled too sharp start.

74th minute: The same homeći gameč no. 30 when losing control of the ball, he made a similar start from the front without touching the ball. It was a dangerous start without control, power and speed. The referee awarded the expected and mandatory second card.

The refereeing commission agrees with this decision and does not expect the intervention of VAR for a direct red card. The refereeing commission does not consider it a clear and obvious mistake with regard to the non-awarding of a direct red card.

Rijeka – Varaždin (29th minute); penalty kick/penalty handball

During the shot at the goal of the home team by the visiting attack no. 11, homeći gameč no. 8 stretched out his left hand and blocked the ball. Gameč Rijeke deliberately enlarged his body, which is punishable by law. The referee awarded a penalty kick on the field and the KNS HNS supports the referee’s decision.

Dinamo – Osijek (83rd minute); penalty kick/tripping

When the visiting attack entered the penalty area of ​​the home team, the goalkeeper touched and tripped the attacker who tried to dribble past him. The referee was close, he did not see any contact and considered that he was attackingč simulates falling contact.

After several checks: a possible foul during the attack phase, a possible backside and a challenge with the goalkeeper, VAR decided to recommend OFR to the referee. After a quick review, the referee decided to cancel the caution given to the attack for simulating and punished the goalkeeper’s offense with a penalty kick. The KNS of the HNS fully supports the intervention of the VAR for this clear stumble and the final decision made by the referee.