The goal scored by Khvicha Kvaratskhelia (24 years old) during the OL-Paris Saint-Germain match continues to be a subject of debate. Initially validated on the pitch and confirmed by VAR, it was ultimately deemed a foul by the Technical Directorate of Refereeing (DTA) after review, as revealed by the League. This is yet another illustration of the difficulty French referees have in speaking with one voice.
“No ‘manifest error’ in the referee’s decision”
“Olympique Lyonnais – Paris Saint-Germain (33rd minute)
Lyon’s Tanner Tessmann was attempting to retain possession of the ball approximately 25 meters from his own goal when PSG’s Vitinha, intervening from behind, managed to deflect the ball with the outside of his right foot towards his teammate Khvicha Kvaratskhelia. Kvaratskhelia collected the ball and scored for his team. The referee considered Vitinha’s action not to be a foul and allowed the goal.” The video assistant referee (VAR) analyzed the nature of the Parisian player’s intervention when regaining possession and concluded that there was no “manifest error” in the referee’s decision.
“The technical decision prioritized by the Refereeing Directorate is to disallow the goal.”
Analysis by the Refereeing Directorate
The analysis of this situation is rather complex, as it presents various interpretive criteria that fall into a “grey area.” However, considering the contact of the Parisian player’s right leg on the back of the Lyon player’s standing leg, which occurred very slightly before the ball deflected—contact that could explain the Lyon player’s fall—the technical decision prioritized by the Refereeing Directorate is to disallow the goal and restart play with a direct free kick in favor of Lyon.
This sequence, which occurred in the 33rd minute, perfectly symbolizes the chronic problem of French refereeing: an inability to draw a clear line between interpretation and blatant error. At the time, both the on-field referee and VAR determined that Vitinha (25 years old) touched the ball before Tanner Tessmann (23 years old), logically validating Kvaratskhelia’s goal. But a few days later, the DTA (Technical Directorate of Arbitration) ruled that slight contact by Vitinha on the Lyon player’s standing leg justified disallowing the goal. In other words, two official interpretations of the same action.
This reversal no longer shocks anyone, as consistency erodes week after week: some minor fouls trigger VAR interventions, others do not, without any clear pattern emerging. As long as referees fail to clearly define the thresholds of tolerance – contact, intent, intensity – each weekend will fuel its own controversy. Paris, Lyon or Marseille, they are all in the same boat: that of arbitration with variable geometry.
