'An abomination of football' - Experts divided on Pavlovic-Thuram penalty incident

""The penalty awarded with On Field Review from the pitch is impossible to see for two reasons. The first is that Sozza is on the opposite side of the pitch, the second is that the referee is following the ball, which at the moment of contact between the two players is already far away," he said."

""The fact that Thuram freed himself from the ball did not affect the decision. It's a complex penalty. Pavlovic's and Thuram's movements must be taken into account, but there's also the recklessness, the step on foot. It's right to award the penalty, and it's also right to give the yellow card.""

""This thing counts for nothing in the game of football. Thuram crossed, and what happens next is completely irrelevant, because he doesn't receive a penalty and nothing serious happens to him,' he said.""

Inter were awarded a second-half penalty after an On Field Review when Marcus Thuram appeared to have his boot stood on while delivering a cross, with contact that could be seen as incidental. The resulting spot-kick was saved and Milan won 1-0, so the decision did not change the match outcome. One view argued the review angle was compromised because the VAR official was on the opposite side and the referee was following the ball, making the contact hard to see. Another view described Pavlovic's action as reckless and justified the penalty and yellow card. A contrasting view called the decision irrelevant to play.

Read at SempreMilan