According to "Varzesh 3", one of the rarest refereeing scenes in Iranian football occurred in the match between Chadormalu and Esteghlal. In the 73rd minute of this match, after reviewing the collision between the Esteghlal defender and the opposing player, the referee awarded a penalty kick in favor of the host team. Diego Torres converted the penalty, but the manner in which it was taken brought in the video assistant referee.

After reviewing the footage again, it became clear that after completing his run-up and placing his plant foot next to the ball, Torres had paused during the execution of the shot. For this reason, Chadormalu's goal was disallowed, the referee showed a yellow card to the penalty taker, and the game resumed with an indirect free kick in favor of Esteghlal.

Danial Moradi said in an interview with Varzesh 3 Live about this incident: "Yesterday, the match between Chadormalu and Esteghlal Tehran was held in the city of Yazd. In the 73rd minute, following a recommended review by the video assistant referee, the referee awarded a penalty kick. I saw some viewers and media outlets refer to this as a new rule, but this is not a new rule and has been approved and enforceable since 2010. Because such an incident rarely occurs in football, it has been seen less frequently. This issue is clearly explained in Law 14, which pertains to the penalty kick and is located in the offenses and sanctions section."

The head of the refereeing department explained the boundary between legal feinting and illegal pausing by the penalty taker: "A player standing behind the penalty kick can use feints and pauses during the run-up. In terminology, this is called feinting, and doing it during the run-up is permitted. Once the player's run-up is complete and their plant foot is placed next to the ball, they must strike the ball without any pause. The Chadormalu player stopped after completing his run-up, placed his plant foot, and brought his right foot toward the ball with a delay. In ordinary terms, one could say he gave a shock to the goalkeeper and then took the shot."

Regarding the legal decision in this scene, he said: "The rule explicitly states that if such an incident occurs, regardless of whether the penalty kick results in a goal or not, the referee must award an indirect free kick and caution the offending player with a yellow card for unsporting behavior. I saw some pages and individuals who lacked sufficient information saying that the referees lack sufficient literacy and that the kick should have been retaken. In this scene, the infraction was committed by the attacking player, and the rule explicitly states that if the kicker pauses after completing the run-up, they have committed unsporting behavior. It makes no difference whether the result of the kick is a goal or the ball misses the goal. In both cases, an indirect free kick must be awarded, and there is no retake. The most severe infraction during the execution of a penalty kick is precisely this pause by the kicker after completing the run-up."

Regarding the role of the video assistant referee in detecting this infraction, the head of the refereeing department said: "The referee did not notice this issue during the match, but the video assistant referee correctly identified the infraction and asked the referee to review the incident. After viewing the footage, the referee was also convinced that the infraction was committed by the kicker. The referee correctly penalized the technical infraction, administered the disciplinary sanction, and restarted the match with an indirect free kick. This was one of the instances where the video assistant referee was able to help our football."

Regarding the authority of the video assistant referee in reviewing the execution of a penalty, he said: "In addition to reviewing the penalty incident itself, the video assistant referee can also examine how the kick is executed. If an infraction is committed by the goalkeeper, the kicker, or their teammates, the referee can intervene based on the protocol, because that infraction ultimately leads to a goal or a disallowed goal."

In response to the issue that during the penalty kick several players entered the area and the Esteghlal goalkeeper also advanced off the goal line, Moradi said: "We call the failure to maintain the prescribed distance by the goalkeeper or players who are outside the area an encroachment. The last update to this part of the rule was made in 2023. Prior to that, the entry of defenders or attackers into the area before the kick was considered an infraction in its own right. According to the current rule, a player's early entry into the penalty area is not an infraction by itself. It is considered an infraction when this entry affects the goalkeeper or the kicker, or when the entering player directly interferes with the subsequent play."

Moradi continued: "For example, if the ball rebounds off the goalpost or is saved by the goalkeeper and a player who entered the area early plays the ball, then they have committed an infraction. Such an incident did not occur in the match between Chadormalu and Esteghlal. The goalkeeper must have at least one foot on or in line with the goal line when the kick is taken. However, the goalkeeper advancing is considered an impactful infraction in two situations."

Moradi explained: "The first situation is when the goalkeeper themselves saves or parries the ball and prevents it from entering the goal. The second situation is when the goalkeeper advances so much that the referee determines this movement has affected the kicker. This happens very rarely, and neither of these conditions was observed in the scene in question."

Regarding the principle of awarding a penalty in favor of Chadormalu, the head of the refereeing department also said: "This scene was definitely a penalty. There are three situations in a defender's tackle. If the defender plays the ball first and then collides with the attacker without extra movement, play-on is signaled because it was a natural collision in football."

He added: "If the defender hits both the ball and the attacker's leg simultaneously, they have committed a foul, and if this happens inside the penalty area, a penalty is awarded. If the defender hits the player's leg first and then the ball, the foul is also completely clear. In this scene, the Esteghlal defender did not play the ball, and his collision with the opposing player's leg caused the attacker to fall. The video assistant referee correctly intervened and called the referee over to review the incident and award a penalty."

Source: Varzesh 3