Controversial Calls Mar Saudi Arabia-Palestine Arab Cup Quarterfinal
Table of Contents
A closely contested match between Saudi Arabia and Palestine in the Arab Cup 2025 quarter-finals at Lusail Stadium on Thursday evening was marked by contentious refereeing decisions, sparking debate among sports fans. A leading refereeing expert has weighed in on the validity of both awarded and overturned penalty kicks during the match.
Expert Analysis Sheds Light on Key Incidents
The match, as reported by Al-Arabi Al-Jadeed and Reuters, saw several pivotal moments scrutinized for potential officiating errors. Jamal Al-Sharif, a refereeing expert with Al-Arabi Al-Jadeed, provided a detailed breakdown of two key penalty incidents.
First-Half Penalty: Correct Call, According to Expert
Al-Sharif affirmed the referee’s decision to award a penalty kick to Saudi Arabia in the 56th minute of the second half. He explained that Saudi player Salem Al-Dosari “controlled the ball, entered the Palestine team’s penalty area, and escaped from one of the defenders.” As Al-Dosari attempted to kick the ball, Palestine’s Saleh Mohammed extended his leg, but failed to make contact.
“The left thigh of the Palestine national team defender, Saleh Muhammad, became an obstacle to Salem Al-Dosari,” Al-Sharif stated. “The defender’s left thigh collided with the right thigh of the Saudi national team captain, which led to Al-Dosari being obstructed and falling inside the penalty area.” This obstruction, according to the expert, justified the penalty decision.
Stoppage-Time Reversal: Correct Decision After VAR Review
A second potential penalty awarded to Saudi Arabia in stoppage time was ultimately overturned after review by the Video Assistant Referee (VAR). Al-Sharif detailed the sequence, explaining that Ali Al-Majarshi initiated an attack, entering the penalty area and passing to a teammate. Palestine’s Saleh Muhammad then attempted a slide tackle to block the ball.
The initial call for a penalty stemmed from the ball making contact with Muhammad’s hand after deflecting off his thighs while he was falling. However, the VAR prompted the referee to re-examine the play. “The referee returned to cancel the penalty kick, because the Palestine defender wanted to compete for the ball,” Al-Sharif explained. “The referee considered that the ball was deflected and the hand was supportive, and he resumed play by dropping, and his decision was correct.”
Al-Sharif emphasized that the VAR review focused on determining whether Muhammad’s actions constituted a genuine attempt to play the ball, rather than a deliberate handball. The referee ultimately concluded that the hand contact was incidental and the defender was legitimately challenging for possession.
The expert’s analysis suggests that, despite the controversy, both major penalty decisions were ultimately justified based on the laws of the game and the evidence available to the officials.
