Real Madrid vs Girona Referee Verdict: Key Calls Analysed
Real Madrid vs Girona Referee Verdict: The Late Mbappé Appeal Will Dominate the Debate
This was not a match full of huge refereeing incidents, but it did finish with one moment that will carry the debate. Real Madrid drew 1-1 with Girona after Valverde’s opener was cancelled out by Lemar, and the late penalty shout involving Kylian Mbappé is likely to be remembered more than anything Alberola Rojas did in the first hour. Madrid finished with 60.7% possession, 22 shots, 9 on target and 10 corners, so the broader story is still that they had enough football to win the game and did not take it.
That matters, because a proper refereeing review should separate two things: what the referee may have got wrong, and what the team failed to do for itself. Girona did not steal this through officiating. Madrid had pressure, territory and chances. But that does not mean the officiating was beyond criticism. It just means the criticism should be specific, not emotional.
Alberola’s overall performance: not chaotic, but not convincing either
Alberola Rojas did not lose the match, but he never fully imposed the kind of calm authority you want in a tense Bernabéu game. This was less a disaster than an uneven night. There were stretches where the game moved normally, but there were also moments where Madrid’s attacking players clearly felt the foul threshold was working against them. That kind of inconsistency is often what turns an average refereeing performance into a frustrating one.
The first notable flashpoint came in the 35th minute, when Mbappé beat two defenders near the edge of the area and was instead penalised for a foul. Live coverage described the decision as very soft, and Mbappé was then booked for his protests. On the law, those are really two separate judgments: the original foul can be debated, but once a player aggressively remonstrates, a caution for dissent is much easier to defend under Law 12. So my reading is this: the foul call itself looked weak, but the yellow for dissent was still
The biggest moment: Mbappé’s late penalty shout
The key refereeing debate came in the 88th minute. Live reports say Mbappé went down after contact, the referee let play continue, and a VAR review did not overturn the on-field decision. That is the moment that changes the verdict of the officiating night, because if the defender makes clear contact to the face inside the box, that is not trivial contact. Under Law 12, a physical offence against an opponent when the ball is in play inside the penalty area leads to a penalty kick.
My view is that this is the strongest case for a likely missed penalty. I am keeping the wording careful because there is a difference between a live-text description and a full technical breakdown with every replay angle. But based on the available reporting, this was not some harmless coming together that could be dismissed out of hand. If Mbappé was struck in the face while attacking a live ball in the box, Madrid have a serious complaint, and this is exactly the kind of moment where supporters expect either a penalty on the field or a stronger VAR correction.
That is why I would not call Alberola’s night a good one. He did not make a series of outrageous mistakes, but the biggest unresolved incident leaned toward Madrid, not the referee. And when the major end-of-match talking point is a penalty appeal that still looks alive even after the final whistle, the referee does not come out clean.
The result was not built on refereeing alone
It is also important not to turn this into a lazy “the referee cost Madrid the match” piece. Girona earned their point. Lemar’s goal was a footballing problem for Madrid, not a refereeing one, and the home side also had long periods where their final-third execution lacked sharpness. The numbers underline that Madrid created more than enough pressure to avoid this conversation becoming only about the whistle.
So the honest verdict is slightly uncomfortable for both sides of the debate. Madrid were not good enough in front of goal for large parts of the game. But Alberola Rojas also left the pitch with a late non-penalty decision that looks hard to defend convincingly. Both things can be true at the same time.
Final verdict
For The VAR Verdict, the clean reading is this: Alberola Rojas had an average-to-poor game, not because he constantly lost control, but because the biggest call of the match appears to have gone the wrong way. The soft foul on Mbappé in the first half added to the irritation, even if the caution for dissent was still supportable. The late penalty appeal is the moment that defines the refereeing conversation.
Our referee rating: 5.5/10
That is not a “collapse” rating. It is a rating for a referee who got through the game structurally, but left behind one major decision that will continue to be argued because it looks like Madrid had a legitimate penalty claim.
