O answer obtained by him Technical Committee of Referees (CTA) to the requested explanation after Abde’s disallowed goal against Celta has indignant even more to Osasuna, who on the afternoon of this Monday, March 13, at the end of the afternoon, made known the communications exchanged with the referees after the letter received in a transparency exercise.

Far from showing a constructive attitude to improve VARthe objective of the step taken by the rojillo club, Luis Medina Cantalejopresident of the CTA, continued to defend that Chimy Ávila was offside without presenting evidence, criticized the external report commissioned by Osasuna, defended the quality of the refereeing system and went ahead by saying on behalf of the referees that he will not consent to “expressions that slippery lack of professionalism”.

O letter arrived in the afternoon after the club released its statement of facts on March 8 via the general manager Fran Canal, who again sent a new reply refuting point by point to the head of the referees. An answer that was made to wait, but that had already arrived twice over the weekend with facts: González González, who mistakenly drew the line in the VAR, spent two games in the VOR room when the idea was to punish him with 15 days of inactivity . On the other hand, Iglesias Villanueva’s performance at Mestalla did not please at all with two reds to Osasuna who had to rectify the video. A disaster that let a calm man like Arrasate fly. “It becomes difficult to continue believing in this,” he said.

RFEF and CTA responses to Osasuna’s request for explanations on VARdownload

In her writing, Canal begins by lamenting the lack of self-criticism that permeates Medina Cantalejo’s text. One flight ahead of the collective. “The first conclusion we draw from their letter is that they consider that such a revision is not necessary, as it does not contain a single line from which an ounce of self-criticism comes out.”


Open war was declared starting from details such as how to approach the CTA. This is the correct procedure communication with the RFEF and its commissionswith the due institutional respect between the entities of Spanish football and, for this reason, we started to respond now and not before, when there were communications on social networks and on the club’s website”, wrote Medina Cantalejo.

The response sent by Osasuna was clear: “We would like to clarify Mr. Medina Cantalejo that the official request made by Club Atlético Osasuna was first sent to the recipients, including himself, and subsequently disclosed on the entity’s communication platforms. We take advantage of this issue to inform you that, in the name of the transparency that football fans deserve, both the answer you gave us and this new letter will be made available to the public.


Even the Committee didn’t like that Osasuna elaborate your claim in depth. “We are surprised that he relies more on an external report made on a television capture than on the lines generated by the system used by the RFEF. FYI, only five offside line systems are certified by FIFA within its Quality Programme, including the one used by the VAR supplier company in Spain.” A statement that the head of the referees followed with harsh criticism of the Osasuna race. Medina Cantalejo defends a “certified system” against a “system that is based on the lines and grass cuts of the field of play”. He adds that it is “at least risky” and that it is not a “correct or measured” statement to guarantee that the method is “inappropriate for a professional category”.

Osasuna went deep into this report commissioned from architect Nacho Tellado. “A week after the action in question, a single image was made available to the public that if something precisely does not favor confidence in the video arbitration system used. Trust must be worked on and not reduced to a mere act of faith. The external report provided is clear in identifying the nature of the error produced, which was not refuted by Mr. Medina Cantalejo, despite having dedicated several paragraphs in his letter to other technical issues: ‘There are no line or vertical deviations, what there is is a problem of criteria when choosing the references of both players’ concludes the explanatory phrase of the Mr. Tellado in his audiovisual report”, appears in the text of the Channel.

The CEO details the piece. “This report, using a motion capture system, shows that the morphological references taken from Javi Galán and Chimy Ávila are not identical, since in the case of the Celta defender the reference is chosen in the deltoid region, while with the striker of Osasuna, the The adopted reference is located in the brachial region. Therefore, what we request from our entity is clarification on this specific issue, which is essential to understand whether the application of the technology that helped the field referee was correct.


The club also put on the table the time spent on analysis of the image to make the decision. 53 seconds compared to nearly 3 minutes for the offside Kike Barja a week before. “The offside line system used by the RFEF is so precise that, in a play like this with the two players clearly differentiated and with no others around, the procedure is relatively simple and allows the verification to be done in a short time. They speculate whether in other matches it took more or less time, which happens when the review depends on the number and position of the players, the sharpness of the most advanced point of the player’s body where the line must be drawn, the placement and height of the cameras in the stadium, etc. Different variables make the time spent different, as you can see”, underlines the former referee.

“In case of goal disallowed for Kike Barja We were not able to appreciate increased visual difficulties for the review to extend for another two minutes and, moreover, we understand that there is a factor that facilitates the analysis of the action, that the point of reference to take in the Osasuna striker and the Sevilla defender is the same: tip of the boot. It is an easier reference to locate than a place on the arm, where it is necessary to hit the exact point on it, which was not done in the fleeting review of Chimy Ávila’s action according to the audiovisual report sent to them. .

may interest you


“We refute your report that there was a misapplication of the technology. The Technical Referee Commission confirms that both the field decision and the subsequent VAR review were strictly correct and adjusted to the established protocol”, underlines the letter. “O Osasuna player’s position was more advanced than that of the penultimate defender and this striker performs an action that clearly affects the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball, which is why an offside offense for interference with an opponent occurs”, he adds.

Nails “inaccurate and insufficient” explanations in Osasuna’s opinion. “They don’t satisfy us because they don’t answer three central questions in this issue: Were the offside lines drawn correctly in this action? Is the image shown on television the one that motivated the decision of the VAR referee? Does the Technical Committee of Referees consider that the references used to draw the offside lines were taken correctly?


Osasuna’s also showed “bewilderment” for the final conclusion of Medina Cantalejo. “We do not allow expressions that demonstrate a lack of professionalism or preparation in the daily exercise of their functions to be used against the arbitration group”, transferred the president of the CTA.

may interest you

“We consider it a victimizer and absolutely unnecessary when Club Atlético Osasuna has always respected the work of referees and, in addition, a review of the use of technology has been requested, precisely to facilitate their work. We imagine that this allocution will have also caused surprise in the Office of the Presidency, which in its response thanks our entity for the ‘tone’ used”, underlines the club.

may interest you