FPF review backs decision to let play continue

Huseinbasic’s shot struck Issa Doumbia’s left arm near the edge of the penalty area in Braga’s match against Sporting, leaving officials to decide whether the contact was a handball offence. Record places the incident in the 48th minute of the second half; Braga’s account puts it in the 49th. The decision not to award a penalty has since become central to Braga’s complaint, and the question is how the FPF’s review changes what can be established about that moment.

The FPF’s ruling addresses the handball, while Pinheiro’s denial concerns the conversation Vicens described. Its conclusion makes the dispute about whether the incident met the threshold for a penalty. Vicens says Pinheiro described it as a clear penalty. There is no independent confirmation of an admission. Braga’s case for scrutiny therefore rests on the decision itself and whether similar incidents are treated consistently, not on a proven concession afterwards.

That defeat brought fresh criticism of officiating: Vicens described a post-match exchange with Pinheiro, while Braga figures raised decisions from both the Gil Vicente and Sporting matches.

The FPF’s National Technical Directorate of Refereeing reviewed the incident on 21 October and backed the decision to let play continue, Record and RTP reported. Its explanation turns on Doumbia’s position, the distance to the shot and the ball’s path across his body.

The directorate said Doumbia’s arm was close to his body and in a natural position as he jumped to deal with a shot from short range. In that reading, the arm did not create an offence: it remained near the body during the movement, rather than being held in a position that made it a reason to penalise him.

The assessment also described the ball touching Doumbia’s thigh before his chest, RTP reported. That sequence formed part of the body’s reasoning for finding no infringement in the area. The decision, then, was not explained by denying that the ball struck his arm; it was the contact’s context that mattered to the FPF.

The FPF review went beyond the handball itself. The National Technical Directorate of Refereeing gave João Pinheiro and VAR official Manuel Mota positive assessments for the Braga–Sporting match, Record and RTP reported. It was an endorsement of both the on-field decision and the officials responsible for the review process.

The directorate also praised how the match was managed overall, RTP reported. Its assessment highlighted the officials’ handling of minor fouls, including avoiding stoppages when they were not needed. That matters because Braga’s complaint reaches beyond one disputed touch: the club has questioned the VAR’s role and the conduct of refereeing more broadly.

Its positive assessment gives Pinheiro and Mota institutional backing, while leaving Braga free to challenge the underlying interpretation. The review offers no separate confirmation of Vicens’s account of what Pinheiro said afterwards; that remains a distinct, disputed claim.

Braga’s statement on 20 October said the Refereeing Council had briefed referees the previous week that Doumbia’s handball was not a penalty. The club said that guidance contradicted the view of most specialists and had left referees confused. That claim moves the dispute from one match to how officials are being instructed.

The club alleged that a foul on Pau Víctor was missed before Gil Vicente’s equaliser, then said Ricardo Horta was denied a penalty and booked for simulation. Braga described those decisions as directly affecting the result, while communication director Alexandre Carvalho also criticised the officiating.

Why was the handball against Sporting not given? Why was this final incident involving Ricky [Ricardo Horta] not called? For me, it is a clear penalty, and the referee not only fails to award it but shows our captain a yellow card. Even against Moreirense, there was a clear foul on Fran Navarro before one of the goals.

Pau Víctor’s comments linked the Sporting and Moreirense matches to the latest defeat. Braga’s statement went further, calling the Refereeing Council and its leadership a source of instability and asking higher authorities to intervene. The club framed that request as a way to restore confidence and protect the integrity of competitions. The Refereeing Council has not responded to Braga’s criticism.

The current Refereeing Council and its leadership are clearly a major source of instability, reflected in the unease referees show on the pitch and the failure of VAR’s safety net. Higher-level intervention is necessary to restore confidence and safeguard the integrity of competitions.

Vicens’s account of the mixed-zone exchange is disputed. Speaking to Sport TV on 19 October, the Braga coach said Pinheiro told him the handball would have been a clear penalty if VAR had asked him to review it. Vicens also alleged that Pinheiro blamed VAR official Manuel Mota for not calling him to review the incident; Mota has not responded to the allegation.

A handball, and then the referee from the previous match himself, when I saw him in the mixed zone, told me that if VAR had sent him to look at it, it was a very clear penalty and it would have been 2-0 against Sporting.

Record reported that Pinheiro denied making the remark and denied that the conversation took place. Braga has not responded to the FPF assessment or Pinheiro’s denial. Record also reported that some referees viewed the handball differently, believing an offence had gone unpunished. The FPF’s conclusion is the official ruling; the reported disagreement leaves the interpretation open to scrutiny.

The dispute sits inside a wider problem for referees: handball decisions depend on interpreting the arm’s position and the surrounding action, so similar incidents can produce different readings. UEFA referees’ chief Roberto Rosetti has said interpretations vary between leagues, even as officials work towards greater consistency through shared video examples.

The perception of handball in England differs. Football is not flawless, and there will be instances where similar situations are interpreted variably. However, we are at least collaborating on this matter.

Rosetti’s point is not that every difference can be removed, but that examples can help officials apply a more consistent standard. That makes the key test in Braga’s case broader than whether the FPF can explain this one decision: it is whether its reasoning matches how comparable handballs are judged. A ruling can endorse the officials’ call; consistency across incidents is what would answer the club’s wider concern.

At the edge of the area, the ball’s contact with Doumbia’s arm remains the image Braga points to. The FPF has set out its reasons for backing the decision.

• 22 October: Braga’s home match against Gent, its next listed fixture.
• Any further statement from Braga or the Refereeing Council on the club’s call for intervention.
• Any published assessment of a comparable handball that tests whether the FPF’s reasoning is applied consistently.