Valeri Breaks Down VAR Decisions from the 5th Round
In the latest in-depth assessment of refereeing technology in Greek football, Paolo Valeri, the vice president of the Greek Refereeing Council (KED) and VAR Manager, offered his analysis of the most debated moments from the 5th round of the Stoiximan Super League. Filling in for Stefán Lanouá, he addressed a series of incidents that put VAR under the microscope, including a goal that counted for Gouma and a penalty controversy involving Panathinaikos.
Valeri’s commentary centers on how VAR should guide on-field decisions, and where the system can fail when feeds are insufficient or misinterpreted. He emphasized that while the goal by Gouma at the Faliro stadium was allowed to stand, the underlying reason lay in the way game footage was presented to the on-field referees rather than a fundamental flaw in the goal itself.
The Gouma Goal at Faliro: A VAR Presentation Issue
On the Gouma goal at the Faliro, Valeri explained: “When there is a problem with the system, the referee makes the final decision based on his own perception and the information he receives from his assistant, which in this case were incorrect.” In other words, the on-field decision relied on limited or flawed input from the VAR workflow, underscoring the need for clearer feeds and multiple angles to avoid misinterpretation and ensure consistency across matches.
Penalties and the Panaitolikos–Panathinaikos Incident
The controversy surrounding the Panaitolikos striker’s header against Panathinaikos centered on whether there was a handball by a Panathinaikos defender. Valeri stated that the sequence did not constitute a foul. He noted that the defender headed the ball and then struck it with the hand away from the body, changing the trajectory away from the goal. He also highlighted a crucial nuance: the ball’s altered path did not constitute a penalty under the applicable rules.
“The VAR calls the referee to review the incident, showing only the contact with the hand and not the initial header,” Valeri explained. “Thus the on-field decision was recorded as a penalty, but the circulating guidance is that these situations should not be penalized.” He argued that the VAR should present a fuller set of replays to allow the referee to assess the entire sequence accurately, rather than focusing on a single touch that may mislead the interpretation of intent and contact.
Other Notable Calls and Validations
Beyond the Panathinaikos debate, Valeri touched on a number of other call decisions from that round where the VAR system performed as intended or was appropriately consulted. He insisted that:
- The red card shown to Sengelia was correct, reflecting the seriousness of the foul and its implications for the match.
- The color change of Pantelidis’s card in the OFI–Kifisia match was justified, illustrating how disciplinary actions can be clarified in real-time with the help of VAR.
- In the Asteras AKTOR–PAOK fixture, the VAR correctly prompted the on-field official to review a potential penalty for Fernandez against Chalov, reinforcing the role of VAR in error-prevention when there is ambiguity around contact.
- AN AEL Novibet goal was canceled properly in its clash with Atromitos, aligning with the league’s standards on offside and build-up rules.
Why Valeri Believes VAR Needs Better Framing
Valeri’s overarching message is clear: VAR is a tool to support referees, not a replacement for them. The system’s efficacy hinges on multi-angle footage that captures the critical moments from several perspectives. He stressed that referees must have access to the best possible replays and that the VAR team must deliver a comprehensive overview, rather than selective frames that can distort the decision or fail to show how a sequence evolved.
The debate around the 5th round reveals two core themes: first, the necessity of high-quality, consistent camera angles; second, the importance of clear communication between VAR technicians and on-field officials. Valeri’s analysis serves as a reminder that, despite advances in technology, the human element in refereeing remains pivotal and vulnerable to misinterpretation without robust video feeds.
Conclusion: A Call for Clearer VAR Communication
Valeri’s assessment underscores a pressing need for improved VAR coverage and communication in Greek football. As the league continues to integrate technology into its officiating framework, the focus remains on ensuring fair play and minimizing errors caused by incomplete footage or misinterpretation. The 5th round’s controversial moments—like Gouma’s counted goal and the Panathinaikos non-penalty scenario—illustrate both the potential and the pitfalls of VAR when the information presented to referees is imperfect.
