On the last day of the Serie A championship, Pisa Sporting Club found itself, despite itself, once again at the centre of attention (seven days after the Napoli-Pisa incident) in a new chapter of refereeing “case law” regarding the interpretation of handball in the penalty area
As we do every Tuesday on Open Var, we listened carefully to the regulatory explanations provided by Gianluca Rocchi, the head of Serie A and Serie B referees.
Pisa SC acknowledges the clarifications provided and believes that, coming from an official body and demonstrating openness to dialogue and transparency, they should be accepted and respected, in line with our club’s approach.
Nevertheless, despite having listened carefully to the arguments, with due respect for roles and responsibilities, we find ourselves in clear disagreement.
In this specific case, the interpretation of the incident involving Fiorentina defender Marin Pongracic is contrary to what happened, for example, in Spain v Germany at Euro 2024: Marc Cucurella’s arm – which was not penalised with a penalty by Anthony Taylor’s refereeing team at the time – was later deemed “always punishable” by the relevant authorities.
It is no coincidence that, over the years, during informative meetings with referees, it has been emphasised that “arms that increase body volume always lead to a penalty”. For this reason, in recent times, many players, including those from Pisa, have found themselves defending with their arms behind their backs, as was the case, for example, with Mehdi Leris during the first half against Fiorentina.
That said, Pisa Sporting Club has always been open to change, innovation and regulatory and interpretative amendments.
If the assessment of Pongracic’s handball in the penalty area constitutes a new line of interpretation, we accept it, hoping that it will be helpful for the present and future of the championship and will contribute to standardising judgement and making it easier for players to manage defensive interventions.
However, we hope that in a few months’ time we will not be involved again in “model” cases that serve to clarify new lines of interpretation or represent innovative arbitration “case law”