Official: CTA determined that Vinicius fouled Yamal and the penalty kick should be cancelled. Garcia took the initiative to handball

The Spanish Referees Committee (CTA) analyzed the controversial penalties in this round of La Liga matches and determined that Vinicius's penalty kick was canceled and Garcia's penalty kick was correct.

About the first penalty (Contact between Yamal and Vinicius)

In the first penalty, the referee on duty determined that Yamal had committed a foul on the Real Madrid winger and awarded a penalty kick. The Referee Technical Committee (CTA) detailed that the Barcelona player "jumped ahead, took up position and attempted to compete for the ball." The committee pointed out: "While his feet were on the ground, the Real Madrid forward hit the opponent when he tried to shoot. The action happened very quickly. The referee initially determined that the contact was caused by a Barcelona player, so he awarded Real Madrid a penalty kick."

In this regard, The committee made it clear: "When a player hits an opponent while fighting for the ball, the foul shall be awarded to the side who performed the hit" - as was the case with Vinicius - and "therefore no penalty kick shall be awarded (to his team)."

"CTA believes that the referee's initial decision to award a penalty kick was wrong. VAR's intervention was reasonable because there were clear and obvious errors in the penalty on the field. After reviewing the monitor, the referee corrected the decision and changed the decision to award Barcelona a foul, which is fully in line with the rules of the game. "

Regarding the second penalty (Eric Garcia handball)

Regarding Eric Garcia's handball at the beginning of the second half, referee Soto Grado initially awarded a corner kick. The committee's analysis concluded that the defender "tried to intercept the cross by sliding down to the ground" and "successfully completed the first touch with his legs", but after the ball bounced off Bellingham, he "made an extremely obvious movement with his left arm to block the attack" and "it was impossible to handle the ball in a legal manner."

"The referee did not notice the action and awarded a corner kick. His arm movement was intentional and unnatural, aiming to expand the scope of his body to prevent the ball from running. CTA believes that the referee's initial decision not to award a penalty kick was wrong. VAR's intervention was reasonable because there were clear and obvious errors in the penalty on the field. After reviewing the monitoring, the final decision to award Real Madrid a penalty kick was correct. "