Dougherty’s incomprehensibility following the referee’s disclosure of his disputed decisions

After the controversies surrounding the OM-PSG arbitration, on Sunday evening, Christophe Dugry admitted that he did not understand the referee’s decisions in “Rothen s’igne” at RMC. But he also explains that he questions the rules and that he hopes the referees will sit around the table to discuss the decisions made during the classic together.

Jordan Veretout’s goal denied for Louis Henrique’s position against Gianluigi Donnarumma, Lucas Beraldo sent off for a foul on Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang: two important decisions of the classic between OM and PSG were misunderstood by many on Sunday evening. But referee Benoit Bastin explained himself after the match, and Christophe Dugry praised him.

“I’ve always asked myself the question when there are refereeing errors: what’s going on in their head?”, he explained to Rothen Signy on RMC on Monday. “Today he explains to us why and how after the match. He justifies why he made his decisions. For me, his decisions are not good, he makes two mistakes in interpretation. And once again, when he explains all this We understand when there is. We have an interpretation of the rules that are made.”

“If the rules are as Mr. Bastian explains, it’s because the rules are poorly constructed,” says Dughry. “If it is not quite right, it is because it is he who has misinterpreted it. What interests me is that he gave his interpretation, we heard it and we did not agree. I dare hope At the arbitration level, there are also arbitrators who do not agree with his interpretation, otherwise there is a big discrepancy. I hope the referees will sit among themselves and tell him that his explanation is not good.”

“His whole analysis is skewed, beside the point, it’s not good”

For the former world champion, the referee’s support after the match is only the first step. “The interest is that the referees are better, that these mistakes are not made anymore,” he explains. “I don’t agree with his explanations, but I’ve always wondered if they’re bad or dishonest. And now I’m asking myself new questions: maybe they’re rules that aren’t specific enough, poorly constructed, have been badly interpreted. , but for what reason?”

Dougherty is still frustrated by Mr. Bastian’s interpretation. “When he gives his explanation, there are concepts that the referee doesn’t understand,” he laments. “The notion of a goalkeeper’s block on a Veretout goal, the notion of an attacker going sideways and a defender not being able to catch up with it. The whole analysis of it is skewed, beside the point, it’s not good. I hope things stick with the fact that they’re talking. will move in the right direction. Because if they come to justify their decisions and explain that they are the greatest, the strongest, the most beautiful, there is no interest. Then the second stage.”

Top articles