The Champions League final, contested in the atmospheric Puskas Arena in Budapest between Paris Saint-Germain and Arsenal, proved to be a nail-biting affair that stretched all the way to the brink of a penalty shootout.
Arsenal drew first blood in the sixth minute, with Kai Havertz delivering a stunning finish that caught the reigning European champions off guard. Following this early breakthrough, the newly crowned Premier League champions found themselves defending resolutely for much of the remainder of the match.
The defensive efforts of the Gunners were commendable, with Gabriel, in particular, putting in a monumental performance at the heart of their backline. However, a moment of indiscretion from Cristhian Mosquera, who fouled Khvicha Kvaratskhelia, ultimately led to a penalty for PSG. Ballon d’Or winner Ousmane Dembele stepped up in the 65th minute and calmly converted the spot-kick, levelling the scores.
As the game remained precariously balanced through extra time and edged towards the ultimate test of penalties, the decisions made by referee Daniel Siebert and his officiating team came under intense scrutiny. This article delves into the significant calls made during the final and assesses their accuracy.
Key Refereeing Decisions in the Champions League Final:
1. Arsenal’s Opening Goal: The Leandro Trossard Handball Debate
Kai Havertz showcased his pace and precision, bursting beyond PSG’s high defensive line to unleash a brilliant shot into the back of the net, giving Arsenal a dream start. The build-up to this goal, however, involved a moment of contention. Leandro Trossard had intercepted the ball in his own half, inadvertently playing a through ball to Havertz. As the ball was played, it struck Trossard’s arm.
Despite the ball making contact with his arm, the referee’s decision to allow the goal to stand was justified. Crucially, Trossard had not deliberately made his body bigger to gain an advantage, and the contact was accidental. Under the current interpretation of the laws of the game, these factors are paramount in determining whether a handball offence has occurred.
- Verdict: Correct call.
2. Potential PSG Penalty: The Bukayo Saka Handball Incident
In the first half, Arsenal’s Bukayo Saka attempted to clear a PSG cross, but in doing so, the ball struck his outstretched arm. This incident understandably sent a ripple of anxiety through the Arsenal faithful, as in previous eras, such a situation might well have resulted in a penalty being awarded.
However, the contemporary guidance on handball offences provided a clear pathway for Siebert to wave away any penalty claims. The International Football Association Board (IFAB) regulations state that a handball offence is not committed when a player:
heads, kicks or plays the ball with another part of their body and it then hits their own hand/arm (unless the ball goes directly into the opponents’ goal or the player scores immediately afterwards).
Saka’s action fell squarely within this exemption.
- Verdict: Correct call.
3. PSG’s Penalty Awarded: Mosquera’s Foul on Kvaratskhelia
The awarding of PSG’s penalty was a relatively straightforward decision for the referee. While all penalty decisions are subject to VAR review, Mosquera found himself out of position and committed a foul on Kvaratskhelia, sending the Georgian winger to the ground.
The primary point of examination for VAR was to ascertain if the foul, initiated outside the penalty area, had continued into the box. The evidence confirmed that it had, leaving Siebert with little choice but to point to the spot. This decision, however, was not the only point of contention regarding Mosquera’s performance.
- Verdict: Correct call.
4. Cristhian Mosquera’s Red Card Claim
Following PSG’s equaliser, Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta made a tactical substitution, replacing Mosquera with Jurrien Timber, a decision he was undoubtedly relieved to have the opportunity to make. Mosquera had already been cautioned earlier in the second half for a needless act of time-wasting.
While a foul from behind on a player with a clear run at goal typically warrants a yellow card, and could have seen him dismissed, the specific circumstances of this incident did not necessitate a red card. Under the current laws, Mosquera’s foul was classified as “stopping a promising attack (SPA)” and a challenge for the ball. Unlike a denial of a goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) within the penalty area, which results in a yellow card rather than a red, this particular offence did not meet the threshold for a sending-off.
- Verdict: Correct call.
5. Noni Madueke’s Penalty Appeal
In extra time, Arsenal introduced wingers Noni Madueke and Gabriel Martinelli, and this substitution nearly bore fruit. Madueke, operating on the right flank, got the better of PSG’s Nuno Mendes as they both entered the penalty box, leading to both players falling to the ground. The ensuing protests from Arsenal’s Declan Rice, who was booked for his strong objections, centred on the officials’ decision not to award a penalty.
Commentary on the UK broadcast suggested that a spot-kick should have been given, but this perspective was arguably coloured by a degree of nationalistic bias. The reality on the pitch was that the players were entangled. If anything, Madueke’s action of grabbing Mendes’ arm appeared to be the more evident infringement. Awarding a penalty in this situation would have been a bold and likely incorrect call. As was the case with the other significant decisions, Siebert’s judgment in this instance was sound.
- Verdict: Correct call.
