Stefan Ortega expressed his dissatisfaction with VAR, despite the fact that the penalty awarded to Aston Villa against Manchester City was not deemed to be the incorrect decision.

Stefan Ortega expressed his dissatisfaction with VAR, despite the fact that the penalty awarded to Aston Villa against Manchester City was not deemed to be the incorrect decision. Stefan Ortega would have believed that Manchester City were on the verge of a straightforward victory over Aston Villa after

Bernardo Silva scored the opening goal. However, Aston Villa were awarded a controversial penalty later in the first half, as Craig Pawson and VAR appeared to believe that Ruben Dias had sufficiently engaged Jacob Ramsey within the area. Marcus Rashford subsequently scored his spot-kick, causing Stefan Ortega to miss. Fortunately for Manchester City, the decision was ultimately judged inconsequential, as Matheus Nunes scored the crucial winner in the 94th minute.

However, Ortega has elected to provide his opinion on the penalty that Aston Villa was awarded against Manchester City in their subsequent 2-1 loss. Stefan Ortega expressed his dissatisfaction with the use of video assistant referees (VAR) subsequent to Aston Villa’s penalty against Manchester City. Ortega was requested to provide his perspective on the penalty that Rashford ultimately converted following

Manchester City’s victory over Aston Villa.Despite the fact that Manchester City custodian Ortega believes the decision to award the penalty was justifiable, it was a 50-50 decision in which VAR should not have been involved. Via BBC Sport, the German stated, “My response was identical to Pep’s.” They previously informed us that VAR should not be introduced if the outcome is 50/50. “I was evenly split.”

The participant was not intentionally fouled. Although it was not the incorrect decision, VAR should not have intervened in this scenario. Mark Clattenburg believed that Aston Villa’s penalty against Manchester City was well-deserved, stating that “Dias of Manchester City comes across Ramsey of Aston Villa and catches his opponent on the upper body.” The defender does make contact with the ball; however,

this occurred after the Villa forwards had passed the ball to the defender’s foot. “The defender’s contact was not intentional and was a result of the forward’s touch.” It is a penalty for me, but it will elicit discussion. In reviewing Aston Villa’s penalty against Manchester City, Clattenburg did acknowledge that Ortega’s assertion regarding VAR is a topic for further discussion.

“Should VAR intervene, that’s another debate, and I don’t believe they should, given what Howard Webb, Head of PGMOL, stated earlier in the season, that it must be a clear and obvious error of the referee.” This decision is a matter of debate and should be left to the on-field decision. Mark Clattenburg discusses whether Aston Villa merited a penalty against Manchester City.