Richard Martens Faces Backlash After Two Controversial Penalties in Excelsior–Groningen Clash
Referee Richard Martens became the focus of intense debate after awarding two disputed penalties during Excelsior’s match against FC Groningen. Both decisions drew criticism from supporters on X, with fans questioning whether the contact in either incident was enough to justify a spot-kick. The calls had a significant impact on the scoreline, adding further fuel to the discussion about consistency in football refereeing and the role of VAR.
The first penalty arrived just after the half-hour mark. Groningen defender Jorg Schreuders initially grabbed Excelsior forward Agust Orri Thorsteinsson outside the penalty area. Schreuders then released him, but made slight contact as the Icelandic attacker moved into the box. Martens pointed to the spot, and the VAR team did not recommend an on-field review.
Irakli Yegoian stepped up and converted the penalty, bringing Excelsior level at 1-1. While the decision was upheld, it quickly became a talking point among viewers. Critics argued that the initial holding began outside the area and questioned whether the subsequent contact inside was sufficient to warrant a penalty. Others focused on the difficulty of judging incidents that unfold across the boundary line, where the point of contact can be decisive.
A second penalty adds to the controversy
The debate intensified after the break, when Schreuders was involved in another penalty incident—this time in Excelsior’s box. The Groningen full-back carried the ball forward and went down between Excelsior defenders Jan Plug and Eric da Silva Moreira. The sequence appeared to include contact, though some viewers believed the ball had already been played before Schreuders fell.
VAR officials asked Martens to review the incident. However, communication problems with the video operation in Zeist prevented the usual review process from taking place. Martens instead contacted the VAR team by phone, after which his original decision stood. Thom van Bergen converted the penalty, putting Groningen 3-1 ahead.
The unusual review process became part of the wider discussion. VAR is intended to help officials correct clear and obvious errors, but it can only do so effectively when communication and review procedures work smoothly. In this case, the technical issue meant the referee could not assess the footage in the standard way, leaving supporters with questions about how the final decision was reached.
Fans question the standard of refereeing
Reactions on X were swift, with many supporters describing both penalties as too soft. One fan, Kjeld, called on the KNVB to give Martens time away from officiating, arguing that the first decision was difficult to understand. Jako also criticised the call, questioning why the VAR team had not intervened over Excelsior’s penalty.
Some comments suggested the second decision may have been influenced by the first. Erik-Sander described it as a possible “make-up call,” reflecting a familiar concern among fans: that an earlier controversial decision can shape how later incidents are judged. That perception does not establish why a referee made a particular call, but it shows how quickly confidence in match officials can erode when decisions appear inconsistent.
Other reactions focused on the broader standard of penalty decisions. Arjan and Ronald both argued that the incidents did not meet the threshold for a spot-kick, while several supporters questioned whether similar contact would be judged the same way in another match. Such debate is common in football because penalty decisions often depend on fine distinctions: the timing and force of contact, the players’ movement, and whether a defender’s action genuinely affects an attacker’s ability to play the ball.
Why penalty decisions remain difficult to judge
Penalty calls are among the most influential decisions a referee can make. A spot-kick offers a clear scoring opportunity, so even brief contact inside the area can attract intense scrutiny. At the same time, not every touch should result in a penalty. Officials must decide whether a player was impeded, whether contact was initiated by the attacker or defender, and whether the incident occurred inside the box.
VAR can provide additional angles and slow-motion footage, but technology does not remove the need for interpretation. Slow motion may clarify where contact occurred, yet it can also make ordinary physical challenges appear more dramatic than they looked at full speed. The key question is not simply whether two players made contact, but whether that contact amounted to a foul under the Laws of the Game.
The communication problems surrounding the second incident also underline the importance of reliable matchday systems. A review process needs clear communication between the referee and the VAR team, particularly when a decision could change the course of a game. When the standard procedure cannot be followed, the explanation offered afterward may be just as important as the decision itself in maintaining trust.
Match outcome and prediction implications
With Yegoian’s penalty making it 1-1 and Van Bergen’s spot-kick extending Groningen’s advantage to 3-1, the decisions became central to the match narrative. For supporters assessing future fixtures, the game may also prompt renewed interest in football prediction, but one controversial match should not be treated as a reliable guide to what comes next. Penalties can swing a result, yet form, squad availability, tactical matchups and home advantage remain essential factors when evaluating upcoming games.
The controversy is likely to continue beyond the final whistle, particularly because the second review involved an interruption to the usual VAR process. Whether fans believe Martens made the right calls or not, the match has highlighted the challenge officials face when judging marginal contact—and the need for consistent standards across the league. For Excelsior and Groningen, the scoreline will shape the immediate conversation; for supporters, the two penalties have left a lingering question about where the line should be drawn between normal football contact and a foul worthy of a penalty.
