After the match between Ajax and FC Utrecht (1-1), there is a lot of discussion about the rejected goal of Davy Klaassen in the sixtieth minute. On the video images, the midfielder of the Amsterdammers seems to be on a par with Mark van der Maarel, but the linesman’s flag signal remained after the VAR had viewed the images. ESPN reporter Jan Joost van Gangelen explains why the goal was disallowed.
“For the sake of clarity, why the goal has now been rejected”, Van Gangelen starts during the commentary ESPN. “I got a lot of messages on Instagram. What is that? Is Stevie Wonder the VAR? Is the VAR on vacation? In this case it is therefore a very small margin, it is actually not an offside. But the assistant has flagged and because the margin is within ten centimeters, the decision of the on-court arbitration will not be overruled. That is, of course, a drunken rule. It was actually designed to ensure that the attacking party has an advantage. So if the assistant hadn’t flagged, it would have been a goal. It’s crooked, but that’s what we agreed. ”
“That is very strange. In this case, we also have the five-meter line as an aid. It is not that we should look with blue and red lines. So it’s a crooked rule. I think it was in the Champions League too, with Kylian Mbappé. That the linesman raised his flag very fanatically ”, says analyst Marciano Vink. “You have to let it go, then you can always raise your flag afterwards,” says Van Gangelen. “That’s better, then you don’t have this bullshit.”
“It was not offside, but that is not the most important”, says Ajax captain Dusan Tadic in front of the camera. ESPN. “It was important, but we cannot focus on that. We have to watch our game. That was not good in the first half. How come? I do not know. A match after a cup final is always difficult. Utrecht is a good team and you know they are going full throttle. We were not ready for that. We are not one hundred percent. Maybe we think too easily about it. Every opponent is a good opponent. ”
Ajax coach Erik ten Hag had heard before the interview with Hans Kraay junior that there was no offside. “If so, it would be very strange,” says the trainer, after which he was shown images of the moment. “I can already see it. A foot from Mark (van der Maarel, ed.). A big mistake on the part of the VAR. I don’t know who it was (Clay Ruperti, ed.), But I cannot determine otherwise. I assume they have seen these images too. Then a different decision has to be made. ”