The heavy 4-0 defeat suffered by FC Barcelona on the Atlético de Madrid pitch not only left its mark on the scoreboard. It also triggered a scathing exit from Barcelona coach Hansi Flick, who directly attacked refereeing and the use of VAR, believing that the entire refereeing body had failed in its primary mission: to protect players and ensure sporting justice.

In a particularly tense post-match speech, the German coach did not try to smooth things over. On the contrary, he described a meeting whose scenario, according to him, would have been influenced from the first minutes by the excessive permissiveness of the officials.

At the center of his anger, a clear reproach: the feeling that Atlético had, in fact, received a form of “green light” to impose a physical search without being sanctioned at the contact level. “The referee basically gave Atlético permission to play that way… He didn’t show them yellow cards while they were hitting our players all over the field,” Flick said, visibly exasperated. Beyond simple frustration, the coach questions a fundamental principle of modern football: disciplinary coherence.

For him, a match can be tough, committed, intense, but the red line must be identified and maintained, otherwise the intensity turns into brutality and the opponent is encouraged to press more.

Flick insisted on the idea that this “trend” did not appear in the second half or in a particular context, but rather would have started from the kick-off. “This pattern began from the first moment of the match. There were absolutely no consequences for their actions. None, really none! » In this reading, the absence of early sanctions modifies the ecosystem of a match: the team that suffers the impacts loses fluidity, hesitates to project itself and sees its key players preserve or become frustrated, while the team that imposes the physical challenge gains in confidence and territoriality.

The Barça coach does not explicitly say that the result is solely due to these refereeing decisions, but his comments tend to suggest that the competitive balance was distorted by a permissive interpretation of the duels.

The other breaking point, even more sensitive in the video era, refers to a referee decision linked to an offside position that caused a Barcelona goal to be disallowed. Flick was categorical: “From my point of view, I saw that offside decision, and IN MY OPINION THERE WAS NO OFFIDE.” The choice of words – “from my point of view”, “in my opinion” – reminds us that this is an assumed evaluation, but the coach goes further by attacking the procedure itself.

He questions the length of the audit: “How much time did they spend reviewing it? About seven minutes? It seemed like they were desperately searching for a justification to disallow the goal. » This sentence is full of insinuations. It not only questions a drawn line or a fixed framework, but it questions the intention: the idea that a decision would be sought rather than observed.

In competitions in which the VAR must reduce obvious injustices, the duration of the exams becomes a signal interpreted by the public and the actors. When the analysis is prolonged, it fuels doubt: either the situation is too marginal to justify an intervention, or the tools do not allow a clear decision or, as Flick suggests, we “construct” the decision. The reality often lies in the technical details (camera angle, image timing, precision of lines), but perception counts as much as decision.

However, it is precisely in this realm of perception where Flick chooses to attack: a feeling of opacity, and therefore injustice.

The third complaint refers to the communication between the referees and the teams. In a football in which the benches demand more transparency, Flick affirms that Barça has not received “any clear explanation.” “In addition, there is no adequate communication between the referees and the teams, they have not given us any explanation! » On this point, the criticism goes beyond the case of the match.

For several seasons now, the VAR has been accused of making sometimes poorly understood decisions, and the authorities have tried, depending on the country, to improve the protocol: announcements on the microphone, dissemination of images in the stadium, clarifications after the fact. Flick, for his part, seems to demand a more direct relationship, at least a minimum of explanation that allows staff to understand the chosen interpretation, rather than being subject to a verdict without context.

The Barcelona coach concluded his accusation by bluntly attacking the general quality of refereeing in the competition in question: “The level of refereeing here is absolutely terrible, the quality of refereeing in this competition is extremely low! It is really, really horrible. » Such a frontal judgment is never trivial. It exposes its author to institutional reactions and possible disciplinary sanctions, but it also reflects a communication strategy. In public, a coach often protects his dressing room: diverting attention, channeling frustration, preventing criticism from being turned against the players, but It is a double-edged sword.

By placing too much emphasis on refereeing, we give the opponent the opportunity to respond, fuel controversy and run the risk of turning the second leg into a matter of media pressure.