Real Madrid drew 1–1 with Girona last Friday at the Santiago Bernabéu in a game overshadowed by refereeing controversies. The hosts were denied victory after protests erupted over a late, controversial incident.
In the 88th minute, Kylian Mbappé went down inside the penalty area after a challenge with Vitor Reis, taking a blow to the face and immediately appealing for a spot-kick. However, referee Javier Alberola Rojas waved play on, judging that the foul did not merit a penalty.
Read also: Video: New racism scandal... Spanish club president chases Muslim players with pork!
TV replays later showed clear contact with Mbappé’s face as he went for goal, fuelling post-match debate.
Mbappé required pitch-side treatment for a nosebleed.
Sources close to Real Madrid argue that the controversy was compounded by the broadcast coverage, which initially failed to provide a clear view of the blood flowing from Mbappé’s nose. and many believe this omission may have affected both the initial assessment and any potential Video Assistant Referee (VAR) review.
Read also: An “unusual” move… Flick announces Barcelona’s squad for the Madrid clash
On El Chiringuito, journalist Juanfe Sanz reported that the Technical Committee of Referees (CTA) would review the incident, explaining: “The case will be included in Tuesday’s review period. The CTA meets on Monday, and no collective decision has been made yet.”
He added, “Although nothing is 100% certain, my sense is that they will rule it a penalty and conclude VAR should not have intervened.”
He highlighted a critical issue with the footage available to the video review room during the match, explaining that VAR officials lacked access to several camera angles. He emphasised that “only one camera showed clear evidence of bleeding”, which, in his view, left the video review room “somewhat blind” to a crucial detail that should have prompted a more thorough review.
Read also: Confusion in Madrid... Arbeloa ‘keeps his decision under wraps’ ahead of the Munich clash
Sanz concluded by stressing that clearer on-field communication could have been decisive: had the referee informed the video room about the bleeding and the player’s treatment, the review might have zeroed in on that shot and expanded the search across every available angle.