Coudet’s ‘penalty or 2nd yellow’ claim on Vini Jr. - why the referee was right

Alavés manager Eduardo Coudet argued the Vinícius Jr. incident had to be either a penalty or a second yellow. That binary sounds tidy, but it ignores how refereeing actually works. If minimal contact exists and is initiated or exaggerated by the attacker, the correct outcome is often play on - not a spot kick and not simulation. The referee kept the same threshold on-field, and VAR cannot upgrade soft contact into a penalty without clear evidence. This decision matched modern guidance on trifling contact, attacker-initiated contact, and the high bar for VAR intervention. Unpopular call, but technically sound.

A tense La Liga match between Real Madrid and Deportivo Alavés featured a second-half penalty-area tangle involving Vinícius Jr. The on-field referee allowed play to continue and did not book the attacker. Post-match, Alavés coach Eduardo Coudet told Spanish broadcaster DAZN that it should have been either a penalty or a second yellow. The debate has since centered on whether contact was sufficient, who initiated it, and whether VAR should have intervened.

🚨 Coudet, Alavés’ manager: “Penalty on Vini Jr.? To me, it was either you give a penalty, or a 2nd yellow.” @DAZN_ES

@MadridXtra

Impact Analysis

Strip the noise and the framework is clear. Under Law 12 and current UEFA-IFAB education, trifling contact that does not clearly impede or is partly created by the attacker should not be rewarded with a penalty. Likewise, simulation requires no meaningful contact and a deception element. Many pundits present a false dilemma - penalty or second yellow - but the third, correct pathway is play on when the threshold for either outcome is not met.

VAR’s role matters. The protocol allows intervention only for clear and obvious errors in four categories. For subjective fouls in the area, the bar is high. If the referee has a credible, unobstructed angle - which he appeared to have, side-on to the line of contact - the video team will only invite a review if replays show a material miss. Soft shin-to-shin brush with the attacker stepping across the defender’s body to seek contact lives in the gray. Gray does not trigger a penalty upgrade.

Competitive impact is broader. Real Madrid’s penalty profile in recent seasons shows teams increasingly defending deep and conceding few reckless touches in the box, so Madrid attackers often face contact that sits below penalty threshold. For Alavés, Coudet’s stance rallies his players and supporters, but privately he will know the decision meets guidance that clubs review monthly with refereeing departments. The call may frustrate, yet it aligns with how the game is currently officiated at the top level.

Reaction

Social chatter split fast and loud. One camp insisted it was a stonewall penalty: “It was a very clear penalty” and “100% penalty.” Others flipped the coin, arguing it had to be a second yellow for acting: “That was a second yellow for assimilation” and “why not give Vini a second yellow if he dived.” Some pushed broader narratives about refereeing culture, blasting “corrupt referees” or dubbing it a league problem. A few Madrid fans shrugged, happy with the result and unmoved by the noise: “Clown manager knows it was a pen but it’s okay we won.”

There was also fatigue with the binary framing: “Just shut up or avoid the question,” wrote one user, capturing a feeling that post-match interviews chase outrage more than clarity. The spectrum of views reveals what always happens with ambiguous contact - each side sees what they want. But even among the most vocal penalty advocates, there’s grudging acceptance that if the ref thought the attacker initiated contact, VAR would stay out. The debate raged, but the law and protocol explain why the on-field call held.

Social reactions

It was a clear penalty

Theo Wacott🇬🇭🇬🇧 (@wtf_theop)

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Eric hau (@erichau47)

Coudet out here giving refs a masterclass in either way, chaos happens 😏

InnocuousSoul (@KaluKakaPunu)

Prediction

Expect Spain’s refereeing body to quietly back the crew in their internal review, citing attacker-initiated contact and insufficient force. Publicly, there may be a clip in the next education package highlighting the difference between impeding with contact and normal positional play. Coaches will use it in meetings to remind wide forwards that stepping across a defender must be paired with clear displacement if they want the whistle. Marginal brushes will not get them a penalty in 2025’s VAR landscape.

On the pitch, Vinícius Jr. will continue to draw tight calls because of his tempo changes and body feints. The adjustment is about staying upright that fraction longer and finishing the action - the best forwards sell the foul by staying true to the ball first. Defenders will double down on showing hands away from the back and timing hip-to-hip containment, not toe pokes. For Alavés, we’ll hear the same message after the next big-game tangle. For Madrid, the staff will stress shot creation over contact hunting. The next controversy is coming - but so is a training-ground evolution that reduces it.

Latest today

• Xabi Alonso’s coy reply ignites VAR storm on Copa del Rey final day - and why the outrage...
• Real Madrid penalty row: Why the referee was right to wave away Vinícius Jr’s appeal
• Xabi Alonso cools talk after embrace with Vinicius Jr., says dressing room is united amid...
• Vinicius Jr penalty shout sparks outrage - and why VAR was right to stay out

Conclusion

I have sat through more incident reviews than I care to admit, and this one is textbook modern guidance. Minimal contact, attacker stepping across to find the leg, referee with a good angle, no clear displacement. Not enough for a penalty. Not clean deception for a second yellow. Play on is the grown-up answer, even if it denies a headline.

Coudet’s frustration is human. Fans want consistency. But consistency today is not whistle-first - it is threshold-first. VAR is not designed to fix gray; it is there to fix red. The sooner we judge these moments by the same yardstick referees are trained to use, the fairer the game becomes. Madrid will feel a few go against them and for them across a season. Alavés will too. Over time the curve flattens. The call here fits the law, the protocol, and the direction of travel. That is what should matter.