Incident date: 2026-02-22
With the match tight late on, Parma scored through Mariano Troilo — and the goal was initially disallowed for a foul on the goalkeeper. After a VAR check, the referee overturned the original call and awarded the goal, which proved decisive in Parma’s 1–0 win.
This one isn’t a “VAR missed it” story — it’s a VAR reversal that split opinion: the referee first judged it a foul in real time, then VAR convinced him the contact/positioning wasn’t enough to cancel a goal. Reuters reported the goal was ruled out and then given after a VAR review.
Decision: Goal Given after VAR.
Our Rating: 🟨 Debatable.
These goalkeeper-contact decisions often sit in the grey zone:
If the keeper is clearly impeded, it’s a foul.
If the attacker is stationary or contact is minimal and the keeper isn’t prevented from playing the ball, it can be a legal goal.
The key issue for fans is consistency: similar levels of contact get different outcomes across leagues and even week to week. The VAR process did what it’s designed to do — but the underlying interpretation remains arguable.
Every verdict depends on context, available angles and the Laws of the Game. We clearly separate confirmed facts from interpretation.
Narek Smbatyan is the creator and lead analyst of The VAR Verdict. Driven by a passion for the technicalities of the sport, Narek provides a deep dive into the Laws of the Game to make sense of football’s most debated moments. By meticulously reviewing VAR protocols and officiating standards, The VAR Verdict serves as a bridge between the complex rulebook and the fans who live for the game.
View author page
0 Comments
Join the conversation with respect. Comments are moderated and must follow our community rules.
Want to join the discussion?
Please log in or create an account to comment and reply. This keeps the conversation cleaner and safer.