Refereeing Expert Backs Calls on Endrick Penalty Appeal and Mbappé’s Disallowed Goal
A refereeing expert has supported two major decisions made during Roma’s Champions League defeat to Real Madrid, including the refusal to award a penalty after Endrick went down in the box and the ruling that disallowed Kylian Mbappé’s goal for offside.
The incidents came during the second round of the Champions League league phase, when Roma hosted the Spanish side. With the match carrying plenty of intensity, both decisions quickly became talking points among supporters. However, former referee Iturralde González said the officials were right to reject Real Madrid’s penalty appeal and rule Mbappé’s effort out.
Endrick Penalty Appeal Rejected
The first flashpoint arrived in the 64th minute. Real Madrid appealed for a penalty after Brazilian forward Endrick went to ground inside Roma’s penalty area following contact with goalkeeper Mile Svilar. Referee François Letexier was close to the action and waved play on, deciding that the challenge did not warrant a spot-kick.
Speaking to Spanish newspaper AS and radio station Cadena SER, González agreed with Letexier’s decision. He argued that Endrick had gone down in an attempt to win the penalty rather than as a result of a clear foul. González went further, suggesting the forward should have been cautioned for simulation.
“Endrick pretended to fall; he even deserves a yellow card,” González said.
Penalty decisions often depend on the details of a challenge: the position of the players, the nature of the contact and whether a player’s fall is a natural consequence of that contact. A goalkeeper’s presence in the six-yard area can make such incidents especially difficult to assess, as even slight contact may look significant at full speed. In González’s view, however, the available circumstances did not justify awarding Real Madrid a penalty.
Why the Decision Mattered
For Real Madrid, a penalty could have offered a valuable opportunity to change the momentum of a demanding away match. For Roma, Letexier’s decision allowed them to avoid conceding from the spot and continue defending without a major interruption. The call was therefore important not only as a refereeing judgment but also as a potential turning point in the contest.
González’s comments provide a clear prediction of how the incident would be assessed by a former official: he believes the referee correctly interpreted Endrick’s fall and that the appeals should not have altered the decision. His assessment also highlights why players can face disciplinary consequences if officials believe they have deliberately tried to deceive them.
Mbappé’s Goal Ruled Out for Offside
Just three minutes after the penalty appeal, another decisive moment followed. Kylian Mbappé appeared to score for Real Madrid, but the goal was disallowed after the attacking move was reviewed for offside. The French forward had moved ahead of the last relevant defender before receiving the ball, according to González’s interpretation of the incident.
González backed the decision, explaining that Mbappé’s body was beyond the defensive line when the ball was played. “His body was ahead. It is a difficult decision, the play is offside,” he said.
Offside calls can be particularly contentious because a player does not need to be clearly several metres beyond a defender to be penalised. Under the laws of the game, the position of the player’s body matters when determining whether they are closer to the goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent at the moment a teammate plays the ball. A marginal advantage can be enough to invalidate a goal if the player becomes involved in the play.
A Narrow Call with a Major Impact
The decision to rule out Mbappé’s goal was the kind of close call that can prompt debate long after a match ends. Supporters tend to focus on the apparent closeness of the defensive line, while officials must judge the precise moment the pass is made and the attacker’s position at that instant. González acknowledged that the decision was difficult, but said the offside ruling was correct.
For Real Madrid, the disallowed goal meant that a promising attacking moment did not count on the scoreboard. For Roma, it provided a reprieve and kept the focus on the wider contest rather than allowing the visitors to benefit from the strike. Decisions like this can shape a match’s rhythm, particularly when they occur only minutes apart.
What the Incidents Say About Modern Football Officiating
The two episodes illustrate the different judgments referees must make in a high-pressure football match. The Endrick incident required Letexier to assess whether contact from Svilar caused the forward to fall or whether the attacker had exaggerated the situation. The Mbappé decision, by contrast, depended on positioning and the timing of the pass.
Video review and detailed broadcast replays can help clarify close calls, but they do not remove every source of disagreement. Penalty appeals involve questions of intent and the nature of contact, while offside decisions can turn on a small difference in body position. That is why expert analysis is often sought after major European matches: it helps explain the reasoning behind decisions that may appear controversial in the moment.
González’s verdict was consistent on both key incidents. He believed Real Madrid were not entitled to a penalty because Endrick had simulated the fall, and he considered Mbappé’s goal correctly disallowed because the forward was in an offside position. His assessment offers a clear refereeing prediction on the two flashpoints, while also underlining how quickly a Champions League match can be shaped by close calls.
As the competition continues, both clubs will turn their attention to their upcoming fixtures. For supporters reviewing Roma’s home defeat, these incidents are likely to remain among the most discussed moments—not simply because of the decisions themselves, but because of the potential impact each could have had on the match.
