Venezia-Inter, Calvarese on the Bisseck case: “I jumped out of my seat, but Pairetto was right”

The contact between Sucic and Helgason and the missed penalty for Bisseck‘s touch: the two refereeing incidents in Venezia–Inter sparked debate after the match. Through the podcast Gian&Giac, available on YouTube, former referee Calvarese analyzed both situations, offering a technical interpretation that partly justifies Pairetto‘s decisions.

On the first incident, the contact between the two midfielders, Calvarese explained that he did not feel it was a penalty even in real time: “It’s as if the Venezia player’s boot grazed that of the Inter player.” He then added a reference to the change in criteria compared to the previous season: “Last year, a touch meant a foul and even VAR. For me, it’s very similar to Vergara in Genoa-Napoli. This year, it seems normal not to award this penalty because it’s just a pass over the boot: the leap we’ve made from last year to this year is significant.”

The initial reaction to the second incident, involving Bisseck, was quite different: “I jumped out of my seat, I immediately thought of a penalty and a VAR intervention.” However, after reviewing the footage several times, his assessment became more nuanced. “I watched all the replays and all the camera angles, I didn’t understand the VAR’s intervention, but even the players’ reactions seemed too mild to me.”

Calvarese then clarified his final reasoning: “I’m convinced it would have been a penalty if there hadn’t been a touch on the ball. I have to say that Pairetto’s reconstruction, pointing to the ball, makes sense, given that if you award it on the field, in my opinion it’s up to VAR because he gets the ball at first.” The former referee concluded by emphasizing that the review system would have worked as a safety net in any case: “Even though the threshold is high, if he had made a mistake by awarding the penalty, VAR would have intervened, because the touch on the ball makes it deflect by 45°.”