CTA to review Vinícius non-penalty vs Alavés - why the no-call was correct

Spain's Referees Committee has opened a post match review into the non-penalty incident involving Vinícius Júnior in Real Madrid vs Alavés. Many point to a similar call in Celta vs Athletic that did draw a VAR intervention. I disagree with the crowd. Based on protocol and what we can infer from broadcast angles, the on-field decision to play on was correct and VAR was right to stay out. Contact appeared minimal, Vinícius initiated the line with a step across, and control of the ball was doubtful. That combination does not hit the clear and obvious threshold required for VAR recommendation.

The review follows a La Liga match between Real Madrid and Deportivo Alavés, with the incident occurring inside the Alavés penalty area as Vinícius Júnior attempted to cut across a defender. Spain's Referees Committee (CTA) routinely audits contentious decisions after matchdays at the centralized VOR hub in Las Rozas, comparing them to precedent and to IFAB guidance. The Celta de Vigo vs Athletic Club match is referenced internally due to a seemingly similar penalty that involved a VAR intervention. No result or scoreline is altered by such reviews; they are used for training, guidance and potential internal accountability.

🚨 BREAKING: The Referee Committee has decided to review the penalty NOT given on Vini Jr. vs Alaves. There was a similar penalty in Celta vs Athletic Club in which VAR did intervene. @elchiringuitotv

@MadridXtra

Impact Analysis

This review matters for three reasons: competitive trust, referee education and media narrative. On competitive trust, the committee will emphasize that post match audits do not change points or retroactively award penalties. That is by design. VAR is a tool for clear on-field errors in real time, not a time machine. This distinction will cool talk of replays or retroactive sanctions that some fans demand.

On education, the incident sits in the gray zone where modern guidance urges a higher bar. IFAB’s current teaching stresses penalizing clear consequence contact, not trifling or attacker-initiated collisions. From the angles available, Vinícius steps across the defender while nudging the ball beyond immediate playing distance. The contact appears on the attacker’s hip and shoulder rather than a stamp on the foot or a trip to the plant leg. Those details lower the likelihood of a penalty. In contrast, the cited Celta vs Athletic case involved contact to the supporting foot with the ball within playing distance, which reliably affects the player’s ability to continue. Different facts, different outcome.

For narrative, expect polarized reactions. Madrid’s stature magnifies every call. Yet the CTA can strengthen credibility by releasing the VAR audio and a teaching clip that explains why the threshold for intervention was not met here. That transparency steadies referees and teams heading into the next matchweek.

Reaction

Social chatter splits sharply, and it tracks predictable lines:

• @all_about_ayo asks the practical question many ignore: if the committee admits an error, what is actually gained after the fact? That captures a broad fatigue with post match theater.
• @hardeywhuyi1 leans into the old trope that Madrid gets what they want. It is cathartic, but it sidesteps protocol. VAR does not re-referee marginal contact.
• @oga_dino brings up a separate flashpoint, demanding a red card for Asensio. That note is muddled, given Asensio now plays elsewhere, but it shows how quickly debates sprawl beyond the incident at hand.
• @ashoksharda7 argues for identical outcomes in similar incidents. Sensible in theory, but professionals know no two contacts are truly identical. Point of contact and consequence matter.
• @Cjtweetshismind and @Dkmolen1 push for sanctions on referees, reflecting a growing appetite for accountability. The risk is turning training reviews into public punishments, which seldom improves decision quality.
• @14764Sairose offers the most measured take, calling it tight and asking for consistency. That is the sweet spot: tighten criteria, explain differences.
• @Maher_papi hints at corruption, which is common but unhelpful noise without evidence. It drowns out real, technical discussion.
• @BigDdd354674 and @derrickdeezy1 stress the futility of post match reviews, especially when a team still trails rivals in the table. They want clarity in real time. That is exactly why the high bar for intervention should remain.

Social reactions

Okey what’s the benefit if it’s clear penalty? How will they give it?

Beerus (@BeerusPlanet)

Similar incidents demand similar decisions, simple as that

Dr. Ashok Sharda (Astrologer) (@ashoksharda7)

This is Real Madrid. They will have to review it

IdletMo🤍 (@Dkmolen1)

Prediction

Here is what will likely happen next, based on past CTA processes and current training lines:

1) The committee will publish or brief a private technical note comparing the Madrid-Alavés incident with the Celta-Athletic case. Expect slow-motion stills that highlight point of contact and the attacker’s responsibility when stepping across a defender.

2) VAR audio is increasingly common in Spain. I expect a release or media session in which the VAR confirms the on-field view did not meet the clear and obvious threshold. That will be framed as protocol consistency rather than a backtrack.

3) No replay, no table change, and likely no public suspension. At most, any official involved could be rotated off a marquee assignment for one round, which the committee treats as calibration, not punishment.

4) Coaching guidance to referees will reinforce two ideas: a) do not reward marginal, attacker-initiated contact in the box, and b) intervene only on objective trips or stamps to the plant foot, pulls that clearly impede, or arm-bars with a visible consequence.

5) For clubs, Madrid will press the point in pre match briefings, while opponents will cite this case to argue for a consistent high bar. Net effect: fewer soft penalties and more tolerance for shoulder-to-shoulder duels.

Latest today

• Bruno Fernandes says Man United wanted him to go in summer - captain stayed for love of th...
• Strasbourg coach’s discipline stance explains Kendry Páez’s limited minutes
• Casemiro ruled out vs Aston Villa - more midfield chaos for Manchester United
• Marco Asensio answers Alavés hostility with an ice-cold line: "Great match. 3+"

Conclusion

Strip away the emotion and the framework is simple. VAR is there to correct big misses, not to search for marginal contact that the referee saw and judged. In this case, the defender’s contact on Vinícius lacks the hallmarks that move an incident from gray to black-and-white: no clear trip of the support leg, no stamp, no obvious pull holding the runner, and the ball not clearly under immediate control. The referee made a credible real-time decision, and the VAR respected the bar for intervention. That is how the system is supposed to work.

Comparisons to Celta vs Athletic misunderstand the nuance. A clip that affects a player’s plant foot is not the same as shoulder-to-hip contact when an attacker is stepping across and pushing the ball ahead. Refereeing is about consequence and fairness, not frame-hunting. The upcoming review should clarify that distinction. If the CTA couples a transparent explanation with consistent appointments, this flashpoint can become a useful case study rather than another week of outrage. The game benefits more from clear thresholds than from late apologies.