Marić: I wouldn’t want to go into conspiracy theories, but we have to say some things clearly. That should not be judged

– Emotions are present in everyone who watched the match, but the impression is bitter. I wouldn’t go into conspiracy theories, but we have to say some things clearly. I listened to Vlaši’s statement today, I’m glad he said that, because that’s exactly what I wanted to say. Analyzing the penalty criteria for confrontations in the penalty area after the break, it was not in accordance with the referee’s decision. The referee did not make the decision on the field, he considered that it was not a penalty kick. I cannot come to terms with the fact that VAR reacts in that situation.

– We had Senegal – Belgium and an offensive push, where they said that the intensity was not enough, that in the spirit of football it was a bit of a field, but it was not like that here.

He commented that the referees, after communicating with the VAR room, have moreć the idea of ​​what will be awarded.

– The referee always decides, but when he is called to the VAR video and when they play those videos, it is easy to be smart like this, but in that situation it is very difficult for him to make the opposite decision from what the VAR room suggests. There was no need for the VAR room to call the referee.

He believes that modern technology in football has both positive and negative sides.

– This decision was made based on technology. It doesn’t matter what we say, but we listen to the loud remarks of those who are not from Croatia, but have a reputation in world football. Technology is a great thing, in some situations that trick was very useful. But I would like that in the future, when there is no clear recording and evidence that the game is played, then it must not be awarded.

In such situations, the judge should make a decision based on common sense.

– It is extremely important, here and always the judge should make the decision. The decision was čhisč, so the question arises as to why he went to watch the tape. He looked at it to explain why he made that decision, he said it clearly and explained it. That’s why there was a video review.

– Considering the technology, the decision was made in accordance with FIFA’s instructions, but the rumblings of former football players may make FIFA think about it, that we must have a clear proof. Not a single camera, and there are 48 of them, showed exactly that this was the case. On the basis of whom was the decision changed? The decision was changed based on the signal, which may have been broken. This is a problem, but the judge’s decision must be based on evidence, in the case of such fundamental decisions, I would like clear evidence, that we do not have conspiracy theories.

Fifa also spoke out, which considers that the goal was justifiably disallowed, and justified the referee’s decision as follows:

– According to the data of the Connected Ball technology located inside the ball, it has been proven that the Croatian national team member with number 20, Igor Matanović, made contact with the ball in the action that preceded the goal against Portugal. This allowed the referee to correctly judge the backlash and cancel the goal. MU sensors placed inside the ball can detect even the slightest contact, which is shown to viewers in the form of a heartbeat graphic (so-called “heartbeat graphic”). This provided the referees with an unprecedented amount of data for making quick and accurate decisions – the world football house explained.