During the Monaco/Paris Saint-Germain match, Lamine Camara’s (21 years old) violent challenge on Lucas Chevalier (24 years old) had already sparked outrage. Le Parisien revealed the words of the video assistant referee (VAR), who was supposed to assist Clément Turpin (43 years old). He offered a rather perplexing justification for a foul that should have resulted in a red card.
“The impact is low, it’s just a twist, we’ll see what happens,” the VAR initially stated before confirming his impression: “The impact is low, there’s a slight twist, but for me, control is over for this situation.”
It’s hard to imagine a more surreal sequence than this. Hearing the video referee explain that “the impact was low” and talk about a “slight twist” before finally concluding that “the control is over” borders on a complete denial of what actually happened. Lamine Camara’s foul, foot forward, twisting Lucas Chevalier’s ankle, is objectively one of those that automatically falls into the red card category. And yet, nothing. Not a warning, not a request for Mr. Turpin to review the footage.
We’re talking about a system meant to correct obvious errors, which simply contextualizes a twist as if it were a trivial anatomical detail. The explanation is ludicrous, almost disarming, and raises a simple question: how can we prevent repetition if the initial analysis is already off the mark? In this case, recognizing the errors is no longer enough; we must understand how we get to this point.
