Refereeing Expert Backs Decision to Deny Darwin Núñez Penalty Appeal Against Al-Nassr
A disputed penalty appeal involving Darwin Núñez became one of the talking points from Al-Nassr’s Saudi Roshn League meeting with Al-Diriyah, after the referee reviewed the incident on the pitchside monitor and decided not to award a spot-kick. Refereeing expert Mohamed Kamal Reesha has since supported that decision, saying the contact inside the penalty area was not enough to constitute a foul.
The incident occurred shortly before half-time during Friday’s eighth-round fixture at Al-Awwal Park in Riyadh. Al-Diriyah striker Núñez went down in the box after a challenge from Al-Nassr full-back Awad Aman and immediately appealed for a penalty, arguing that he had been tripped.
The referee initially allowed play to continue, but the appeal prompted a VAR review. After watching the footage at the pitchside screen, the official returned to the field and confirmed that no penalty would be given. Núñez appeared surprised by the outcome and continued to signal that he believed the challenge had brought him down unfairly.
Why the referee rejected the penalty claim
Reesha, a refereeing analyst speaking to Saudi newspaper Al-Riyadiah, agreed with the on-field decision. He described the contact between Aman and Núñez as natural and said it did not meet the threshold required for a foul.
“The contact between Awad Aman, the Al-Nassr defender, and Darwin Núñez, the Al-Diriyah striker, is natural and does not amount to a foul,” Reesha said. He added that there was no basis for awarding a penalty and that allowing play to continue was the correct decision after the referee reviewed the footage.
The explanation highlights a key point in penalty-area decisions: contact alone does not automatically mean a foul has occurred. Referees must judge the nature of the challenge, its effect on the attacker and whether the defender has acted carelessly or unfairly. In this case, Reesha’s assessment was that the interaction between the two players did not cross that line.
VAR review puts the decision under scrutiny
The use of VAR made the moment especially significant. When a referee is sent to the monitor, supporters often expect the original call to be overturned. However, a review is not a guarantee that a penalty will follow. The official still has to interpret the replay and decide whether the available evidence shows a clear and relevant infringement.
Slow-motion footage can make ordinary contact appear more dramatic than it felt at full speed. That is why officials consider the entire action rather than focusing only on the moment the players make contact. The defender’s movement, the striker’s balance and the overall intensity of the challenge can all influence the final decision.
Reesha’s comments offered a clear defence of the referee’s judgment. His view was that Aman did not commit a punishable offence and that the VAR process supported the decision to keep play moving. The opinion may not settle every debate among fans, but it provides a technical explanation for why the appeal was rejected.
A frustrating moment for Núñez and Al-Diriyah
For Núñez, the decision was a frustrating one. Strikers are expected to react quickly in crowded penalty areas, where even slight contact can affect their movement and ability to reach the ball. From the attacker’s perspective, going to ground may appear to be the clearest indication that a challenge has disrupted play. The referee, however, must determine whether that contact was caused by an illegal action.
Penalty calls can have a major influence on a match, particularly when an appeal comes just before the interval. A successful decision could have offered Al-Diriyah a valuable opportunity from the spot and changed the mood heading into half-time. Instead, the referee’s decision left the score and match situation to be settled through open play.
For Al-Nassr, the ruling avoided conceding a potentially important penalty, while Aman escaped punishment after his challenge was reviewed. Yet such moments can remain controversial even when a referee receives expert backing, because supporters often interpret the same footage through the lens of their team’s interests.
What the call means for the wider Saudi Pro League discussion
The episode adds to the ongoing conversation around refereeing standards and VAR in the Saudi Pro League. As the competition attracts greater international attention, high-profile incidents involving well-known players are examined closely by fans, pundits and former officials. Clear explanations can help audiences understand why a decision was made, even when they disagree with it.
For viewers assessing the call, the central question is not simply whether Núñez and Aman made contact. It is whether Aman’s action was illegal and whether it directly caused the striker to fall. Reesha’s conclusion was that the contact was natural, meaning the referee was right not to award a penalty after checking the replay.
That distinction is important for anyone following football closely. A penalty is one of the most consequential decisions a referee can make, and the standard should be based on the rules rather than the reaction of the players or the crowd. VAR can provide another angle, but the final decision still depends on the official’s interpretation of the incident.
Match prediction and the road ahead
With the controversial appeal now reviewed by a refereeing expert, attention will turn to Al-Nassr and Al-Diriyah’s next fixtures. Al-Nassr are scheduled to face NEOM in the AFC Champions League Elite on October 13, 2026, before returning to Saudi Pro League action against Al-Taawoun on October 18. Al-Diriyah are also due to meet NEOM in league play on October 18.
Any match prediction for those upcoming games will depend on team selection, fitness and how each side responds to its latest performance. For Al-Nassr, maintaining composure in high-pressure moments will remain important across both domestic and continental competition. Al-Diriyah, meanwhile, will want to turn attacking pressure into clear chances and avoid allowing controversial calls to overshadow their football.
The decision against Núñez may continue to prompt debate, but Reesha’s assessment is firm: the contact was not a foul, and the referee was correct to deny the penalty. The incident serves as a reminder that VAR reviews do not exist to reward every appeal; they are there to help officials determine whether a clear offence has taken place.
