Controversial Penalty and Two Disputed Challenges;/ Expert Review of Suspicious Scenes in Khaibar-Persepolis

The Khaibar Khorramabad versus Persepolis match was marked by three suspicious refereeing incidents.

According to Sport Se, Persepolis football team faced Khyber today in the delayed match of the seventh week of the Premier League at Takhti Stadium in Khorramabad and finally left the field with a goalless draw. This match, which was refereed by Bijan Heydari, was accompanied by three controversial refereeing scenes that affected the referee's judgment.

The first scene happened in the 21st minute when Hossein Abargoui brought down Hossein Abargoui with a foul, but in the situation where the Khyberites believed that he should have been penalized with a card, the referee was satisfied with declaring a foul. Only three minutes later, the most controversial scene of the game occurred when Oston Oronov was brought down in the penalty area in a collision with a Khyber defender.

In this scene, Bijan Heydari immediately blew his whistle and pointed to the penalty spot, but minutes later he went to the side of the field to review the scene and changed his decision when it was clear that VAR did not have a clear scene.

In the 82nd minute, Yasin Salmani, who entered the field as a substitute player, committed a foul on Mehrdad Ghanbari, and in a situation where Khyberis believed that the Persepolis player could have been sent off, the referee fined him with a yellow card.

In the following, you will read the opinions of the judging experts regarding these scenes:

📌 Collision between Abargoui and Abuzar Safarzadeh (suspected personal penalty - 21st minute)

❌ Mehdi Ali Qadr: Persepolis player carelessly hits the shoe of Khyber player and the penalty is a direct free kick and a warning to the offending player.

❌ Hossein Asgari: As it is clear in the picture, the Persepolis player comes with the sole of his foot and the Khyber player hits his sole while shooting. This scene was the fault of the Persepolis player and he should have received a warning.

📌 Khyber and Oronov's defender collided (suspected penalty - 24th minute)

⚪️ Mehdi Aliqader: Unfortunately, due to the very low quality of the images and most importantly, the lack of a more suitable angle for evaluation, it is not clear why a penalty was taken at all, and why and with what explanations that took place between the VAR team and the referee of the match and a lot of time was spent on it, the penalty was canceled. Therefore, according to the mentioned cases, an accurate evaluation cannot be done with these images.

⚪️ Hossein Asgari: The filming was really poor and the scenes were not displayed correctly, but the important thing is that the VR protocol says that VR can enter when there is a clear scene and that scene clearly shows that the referee's decision was not correct. Here they showed a scene during the game and the VAR team didn't have another scene and they showed the same scene. The referee had decided on a penalty; He was 6-7 meters away from the stage and must have seen something that made him decide to call a penalty. If VR had a scene that showed that the decision was not right, it could have entered, but it didn't. No one can say that this scene is a penalty or not because the pictures are not clear, but we always say that when the picture is not clear, we have to respect whatever decision the referee makes. Unfortunately, our referees have gone astray and left themselves in the hands of VR. The referee has made a decision and if he wants to reverse his decision, this should happen in a documented way. What is the document that shows that the referee was wrong? There was only one scene during the game that didn't show anything.

📌 Clash between Salmani and Ghanbari (suspect of expulsion - minute 82)

Mehdi Aaliqader: The player of Persepolis team committed a careless mistake and although the place of impact is above the wrist of the Khyber player, but according to other considerations, the penalty is only a yellow card.

Hossein Asgari: The referee's decision is correct. The player makes a tackle and the ball lands on his leg and his shoe rubs against the opponent's knee. According to the law, there is excessive force in the case of gross misconduct, but it does not exist in this scene.