Sport

Understanding the controversy: PSL referee's take on THAT Kaizer Chiefs' goal against Stellenbosch FC

Premier Soccer League

Michael Sherman|Published

Sage Stephens With the game locked at 1-1 heading towards extra time after the 90th minute, Chiefs player George Matlou appeared to have fouled Stellenbosch keeper Sage Stephens during a corner.

Image: Ayanda Ndamane, Independent Media

Following the controversy of Kaizer Chiefs’ crucial score which led to their Nedbank Cup victory over Stellenbosch FC over the weekend, a PSL referee has weighed in on the matter.

With the game locked at 1-1 heading towards extra time after the 90th minute, Chiefs player George Matlou appeared to have fouled Stellenbosch keeper Sage Stephens during a corner. With the gloveman impeded, Pule Mmodi was able to find the back of the net from close range.

The assistant referee flagged the incident, but referee Sikhumbuzo Gasa consulted with his colleague on the touchline before allowing the goal to stand.

As Stellenbosch threw all their players forward to find an equaliser, Chiefs found a third as they caught their opponents on the break to rub salt into the wound.

Many variables

The current PSL referee speaking to KickOff.com on condition of anonymity said: “So, in terms of law 12, the following considerations must be asked.

“One, was the goalkeeper challenged for the ball fairly? From the clip I saw, I would say no. Matlou made no attempt to play the ball and impeded the goalkeeper. Restart should have been called in a direct free kick award to Stellies.

“Two, Mmodi wasn't offside as the ball is played by a steady player onto a steady player. In terms of law, it must be played by a teammate to be offside.”

The official went on to say that if the assistant referee flagged for offside, the referee was correct by overruling the assistant referee because he didn't think the assistant referee saw who last played the ball.

“But personally, if the assistant referee flagged for the foul on the goalkeeper, there's no way the referee could have turned his decision as I think the referee was unsighted.

“Unless the referee said: ‘I saw the contact and deemed it to be fair’, then the referee was incorrect in his interpretation of the law.”

@Michael_Sherman