The Spanish Technical Committee of Referees (CTA) has explained why it cannot take disciplinary action over Arda Guler’s incident against Sevilla, with the available footage failing to establish exactly how the Real Madrid midfielder made contact with Peque.
The incident occurred during the first half of Real Madrid’s match against Sevilla, which was still goalless at the time.
Sevilla believe Guler should have been sent off for an alleged elbow, but the lack of a conclusive camera angle has complicated any attempt to review the episode retrospectively, as per MARCA.
CTA says available footage cannot establish what happened
The central problem is not that the incident was missed by every camera, but that none of the available angles provides enough detail to establish precisely what happened.
Sources at LaLiga told MARCA that 23 camera angles were used for the broadcast, yet only the widest views captured the confrontation.
Those included a rear camera, the Skycam and the camera generally used for offside decisions.
The production team did not have a closer shot that could clearly establish whether Guler struck Peque with his elbow or made contact in another way.
According to the report, this was not a production error because the relevant footage simply does not exist, and the signal received by the television production was the same as that available to the VAR team.
That information is quite crucial because it suggests the controversy cannot be resolved by obtaining an alternative broadcast angle that was available but unused.
Simply put, the necessary visual evidence was never captured in sufficient detail.
VAR cannot intervene without conclusive evidence
Sources from the CTA explained why the available images do not provide a basis for further action.
They stressed that not every camera at a match is suitable for VAR purposes, particularly when an incident happens away from the ball and outside the referee’s immediate field of view.
CTA cannot intervene in the Arda Guler incident. (Photo by Angel Martinez/Getty Images)
“Of the many cameras at the match, not all are suitable for VAR. The incident took place behind the referee, in an area away from the ball.
“The cameras weren’t focused there; only those with a very wide angle were. As we’ve seen, the incident is visible, but there’s no detail.”
The same sources emphasised that the images do not establish the nature of the contact or provide enough evidence to justify retrospective intervention.
“It’s not clear whether he hit him with his shoulder, his elbow or his hand, in the face… You can’t see.
“And as there is no evidence, no action can be taken. No penalty was given on the pitch and VAR, without conclusive evidence, cannot do anything,” it stated.