Refereeing decisions dominated the closing minutes in Kaunas as Malta were held to a dramatic one-all draw with Lithuania. Two interventions shaped the outcome. A straight red card for Jake Azzopardi in the 90+1 minute after a lengthy VAR check, and a penalty awarded against Zach Muscat deep into added time. Both calls sparked anger among Maltese supporters and a flurry of debate online, yet a strict reading of the Laws of the Game explains why the referee’s decisions stood.
Broadcast replays of the Azzopardi incident show the substitute arriving into a strong challenge, nicking the ball first and then, as his foot rode up and off the ball, planting with studs on the opponent’s lower leg with much of his weight committed through a rigid limb. Law 12 is clear that a player must be sent off for serious foul play if a tackle or challenge endangers the safety of an opponent. Modern guidance asks referees to judge the mode of the challenge rather than the simple fact of who touched the ball first. Considerations include speed and intensity, point of contact, the leg being straight or locked, studs exposed and the potential for injury. On those criteria, a red card is a credible outcome. At elite seminars, instructors sometimes describe that mechanic as an iron bar tackle because the straight, high force contact through the studs creates significant danger. Azzopardi was unfortunate that the ball contact preceded the collision, but once his foot slid over the top and landed on the opponent’s leg with force, the risk profile crossed into send-off territory. VAR can recommend an on-field review for a potential serious foul play red card, and the referee, after consultation, chose red.
The penalty against Muscat arrived in the fourth minute of added time and drew a similar split between emotion and law. Many argued the contact was trivial for such a late decision. Law 12 requires a direct free kick when a defender holds an opponent or impedes with contact. Inside the penalty area, that offence becomes a penalty. What matters is whether the holding or impeding has an impact, even slight, on the attacker’s ability to play the ball or continue his movement. The replays show Muscat’s hand on the opponent and a brief check that arrests the run. VAR’s role is to intervene only if the on-field decision is a clear and obvious error. In practical terms, the check focuses on factual elements such as whether there was contact and whether that contact fits the defined offence. Once contact and a restriction of movement are established, the on-field decision is rarely overturned. The check confirmed contact, and the penalty stood.
Context matters. Supporters will point out that similar contacts often go unpunished during a match and that the timing, so late in the game, feels harsh. Referees are trained to apply the same threshold in the first minute and the last. Safety takes precedence for the tackle, and defined holding offences are not time-dependent. On that basis, both key calls, while tough for Malta, align with the letter of the law and current UEFA interpretation. Emotions after the final whistle are understandable. The decisions that produced the one-all scoreline are also explainable.
