At a glance
- Girona defender Yan Couto Reis caught Mbappé in the face in the 87th minute, leaving the forward visibly bleeding – and still no penalty came, which made for a CTA intervention.
- The CTA stopped short of condemning the officials, acknowledging the incident could have been a penalty while standing behind both the referee and VAR.
- VAR corrects only clear and obvious errors – and with this decision open to interpretation, it had no grounds to step in.
The CTA weighs in on the penalty on Mbappé against Girona
In the dying minutes of Real Madrid’s 1-1 draw with Girona, Kylian Mbappé went down inside the penalty area after taking an arm to the face from defender Yan Couto Reis. The contact left him bleeding and needing medical attention. Referee Alberola Rojas waved play on. VAR stayed silent. And within hours, the debate had taken over Spanish football.
The CTA – Spain’s refereeing authority – has since offered its clearest explanation yet of what went wrong, and what didn’t.
What the CTA said about the Mbappé incident
In its review, the CTA described Reis’ arm as extended and the contact as “imprudente” – imprudent. That language matters. Under football’s laws, imprudent contact can constitute a foul. Meaning the body that oversees LaLiga referees effectively acknowledged that a penalty could have been given.
But acknowledging a possible error is not the same as confirming it was. The CTA stopped well short of that, defending both the on-field decision and VAR’s inaction.
Why VAR did not intervene
This is where the technical distinction becomes important. VAR exists to correct clear and obvious errors – not to re-referee judgment calls. Referee Alberola Rojas had a clear line of sight to the incident and made a decision in real time. Because the contact could reasonably be interpreted in more than one way, it did not cross the threshold VAR requires to step in.
The CTA’s position is consistent with how the system should work. A decision being wrong is not enough to trigger a review – it must be unambiguously wrong.
The wider picture for Real Madrid
In a LaLiga title race decided by fine margins, a missed penalty in the 87th minute carries real weight. That frustration has been audible among Real Madrid supporters and pundits alike, many of whom argue that Mbappé’s injury alone should have been enough for VAR to act.
The CTA’s review also covered incidents from Sevilla vs Atlético Madrid and Osasuna vs Betis, where decisions were upheld on similar grounds – reinforcing that the pattern here is about the limits of VAR, not bias toward any particular club.
What the Mbappé case ultimately exposes is the tension at the heart of modern football officiating: a system built to add certainty, constrained by the inescapable subjectivity of the sport itself.
