In a thrilling match, the Hong Kong team drew at home against their last-placed rivals, but at the cost of two points. As the game came to an end, fans were erupting like a volcano, chanting "Javier out", while journalists from the Hong Kong media questioned the fairness of the referee's decision. Journalist Liu Wenchao was outspoken on his social media platforms, citing four major "misfortunes" for the Hong Kong team in the match: a trivial hair that was blown for offside, a suspected handball in the penalty area, a suspected foul on Oscar before he conceded the ball, and a red-carded counterattack that necessitated VAR's intervention (see photo below).
The so-called "hairy offside" was in fact in the 11th minute of the match, when the Hong Kong player was offside by just a fist's width. The offside moment was clearly depicted by the live camera (see above). From the picture, it is clear that the offside of the Hong Kong player was not "body hair", but was real. As for the suspected handball in the box by the Dalian team, it is controversial as to whether a penalty should have been awarded. Wu Lei's shot did touch the defender's arm, which was not completely closed. If another referee, Ma Ning, had been in charge of the game, the ball would have been blown for a penalty kick. However, if the penalty kick was not awarded, this is not a bad explanation: both players were too close and the defender had little room to stop. Wu Wei's movements in defense seemed natural, and even if he reached out to stop the shot, it was not overly exaggerated (see below).
Many players in the penalty area tend to deliberately aim their attacks at the arms of defenders with a view to getting a penalty kick. If a penalty is awarded for every touch, it will undoubtedly contribute to this undesirable trend. Referees have their own criteria for awarding penalties, some will award penalties and some will not. Those who are awarded penalties may have to accept them in silence, while those who are not awarded penalties may find an explanation in the rules. Turning to the Dallians' goal, was the goal awarded for a foul? In fact, the goal was a "pass" from a Dalian player to a teammate before Oscar fell to the ground, thus launching a quick counterattack. Watching Oscar's fall to the ground (see above), the Dalian player stops him with his right leg. After his opponent drops his leg, Oscar tries to move forward with the ball, but Zhao Jianan's kick tries to disrupt his movement, resulting in the ball hitting Oscar's right foot and causing him to fall unsteadily as he leans forward. Did this constitute a foul? The answer is not clear. You can't simply say there was physical contact. If, after Oscar fell to the ground, Zhao Jianan kicked the ball a second time instead of kicking Oscar's foot, then it would clearly be a foul. But in this case, it was the other player who kicked the ball first and did not directly touch Oscar. As for Laureus' red card, it was only shown after the VAR video assistant referee reminded him of it, and reporter Liu expressed his dissatisfaction with this. Apparently, the referee did not see with his own eyes that Laureus made the clearance with his hands rather than his feet, which could only be realized through the VAR's review. Is this a loss? And a great misfortune for the Port? After talking about these four "misfortunes," the reporter went on to write, "While we sometimes laugh at the antics of some of our fans, perhaps it's the teams that truly deserve the sympathy that really get the attention." Although not explicitly stated, we can all guess which teams' fans he was referring to. I have to admit that at this critical moment, Hong Kong fans have a deep appreciation for how other fans really feel. When Beijing Guoan fans were screaming because of "offside body hair" and Shandong Taishan fans were furious because of a foul on Fellaini's good shot, how did Hong Kong fans feel about these situations?
