Dinamo accuses after Vassaras found an explanation for the flaw in the result in Banie: “They cut off the VAR conversation!”

The conflict broke out after the head of CCA tried to justify the validation of the goal scored by Steven Nsimba in the 90th minute, a success that brought victory to Olten.

The incriminated phase happened 40 seconds before the goal, when Craiova's French striker played the ball from an obvious offside position, after a pass from Tudor Băluță. Although the assistant Adrian Vornicu kept the pennant down, the replays confirmed the irregular position.

Vassaras' explanation, according to which VAR could not intervene because the goal phase represented a new attack phase (APP – Attacking Possession Phase) after Dinamo would have briefly recovered possession, irritated the Dynamo official.

Andrei Nicolescu, according to Vassaras' explanation: “He cut what did not agree”

Nicolescu he also pointed out the discrepancy in treatment between the clubs, recalling the previously submitted memos that remained without a transparent response. He suggested that the CCA was trying to cover up a serious arbitral error by forced interpretations of the regulation.

“He cut what didn't agree, you can see, there are cuts, the VAR conversation is not left free. It seemed to me that it was logical to listen to the whole thing. He reacted, I don't know on what criteria he reacted now and he didn't react to the foul on Musi, in Giulesti (no – 2-3 with Rapid, in the first stage of the play-off).

I admit that I received this video when I sent a memo to the CCA, I don't understand what the criteria are for which then we were answered after 4 days and everything was refused, and now it has been answered and an explanation has been provided.

That's where the discussion in the VAR booth was much more interesting. It can be seen that it is cut, on the last part of the video. When desired, any explanation is found and the principles are applied differently, speaking of this subjective assessment that it is a new APP, so I convince myself.

When Craiova gets possession after the obvious offside, it was normal to stop the game and we don't have the discussion there.

Not much to say, except that, as long as we don't have clear rules, every time one wants to put a handkerchief on the tambourine an explanation like this will come out and an impression will be created.

When someone tries to convince you at any cost, you have no way. When Craiova gets possession on that offside, they say it's offside, at that moment you have to make a decision.

I saw that Mr. Vassaras does not specify, Mr. Popa subjectively assesses that I entered possession at the stage with Cristi Mihai. If that is possession, we are reinventing the game of football”, said Andrei Nicolescu on the show “Fotbal Show”, from Prima Sport.

VIDEO | Kyros Vassaras' explanations after the refereeing scandal in Craiova University – Dinamo 2-1

Up-to-date ranking from the play-offs