The 90+4 Red Card: The Referee May Have Been Right, and the 'FIFA Expert' Was the One Wrong

In the 90+4th minute, the stadium held its breath. Goalkeeper Phan Đình Bách of U20 Vietnam left his goal line, sprinting forward to join the attack like a reluctant striker. It was a bold decision, an all-in gamble at the end of the match. But the ball was stolen, U20 Palestine launched a lightning counterattack, and then Đình Bách's tackle from behind sent the opposing player flying into the air. The whistle blew, the red card was shown. The match ended in tragedy. But the story didn't stop there: a FIFA referee spoke to Tuổi Trẻ newspaper, asserting that the Palestinian player was offside and the red card was a mistake. A wave of outrage rose. But are we looking at this correctly? Was the referee really wrong, or was the so-called 'expert' the one who misunderstood the law? This is a play about mistakes, where the line between right and wrong is thinner than we think. The context: the match was part of the AFC U20 Asian Cup qualifiers, where U20 Vietnam needed a favorable result. By the final stoppage time, the score was still tied, or possibly losing, and the coach needed a goal. The goalkeeper's advance is a familiar tactic in modern football, used when a team needs a goal in the final minutes. It creates a numerical advantage in the opponent's box but leaves the goal empty. Đình Bách ran up, and it was a calculated decision. But the ball was lost, and Palestine counterattacked at breakneck speed. The number 10, Hamade, dribbled past the halfway line, then passed to Nashashibi who was sprinting forward. Nashashibi received the ball but was immediately tackled from behind by Đình Bách (who had run back). The tackle sent Nashashibi crashing down, almost flying into the air. The referee showed a straight red card. After the match, a FIFA referee (unnamed) analyzed in the press that Nashashibi was offside because only one defender was ahead of him, and according to the 'two-defender rule,' he needed two opposing players ahead of him to be onside. But this is a serious misunderstanding of the offside law. The law states: a player is in an offside position if he is ahead of the ball and ahead of the 'second-last opponent' (usually the last defender, but not counting the goalkeeper if he has advanced). In this situation, goalkeeper Đình Bách had advanced, no longer in his goal, so he was no longer the 'last man' in the traditional sense. If Nashashibi was only ahead of one defender (excluding the goalkeeper), and the goalkeeper was behind that defender (i.e., in a deeper position), then the goalkeeper becomes the 'second-last opponent.' This means Nashashibi might not be offside, as he could be ahead of the defender but still level with or behind the goalkeeper. In other words, the 'two-defender rule' only holds when the goalkeeper is the last man. When the goalkeeper advances, his position changes, and determining offside becomes more complex. Based on my experience following youth international matches, I've noticed that young referees often struggle with situations where the goalkeeper advances. They're used to determining offside based on the last defender's position, but when the goalkeeper leaves the box, they get confused. In this match, if Đình Bách's position at the moment Hamade passed the ball was level with or deeper than the last defender, then Nashashibi could very well be onside. And if not offside, then Đình Bách's tackle from behind was a serious foul, deserving a straight red card under Law 12: 'denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity' or 'serious foul play endangering the safety of an opponent.' The tackle that sent the player 'flying into the air' shows the level of danger, and the referee had grounds to show the red card. So who was wrong? Possibly no one. The referee was right to show the red card if he determined Nashashibi was onside. And the FIFA referee was wrong to mechanically apply the 'two-defender rule.' But why did he make such a flawed analysis? Perhaps because he didn't account for the goalkeeper's advanced position, or perhaps he wanted to protect a colleague's reputation. Whatever the reason, this incident shows that even professionals can make mistakes in applying the law. The interesting thing is that the wave of outrage from Vietnamese fans is based on an analysis that may not be accurate. They believe their team was wronged, but in reality, the referee may have handled it correctly. This isn't the first time Vietnamese football has faced offside controversies, but this time, we need to look more objectively. We need to ask: are we letting emotions cloud our judgment? Are we looking for a scapegoat for an unfavorable result? Look at Palestine's tactics. They counterattacked perfectly. Hamade dribbled past the halfway line with astonishing speed, and his pass to Nashashibi was sharp, tearing through a defense that had been stretched. This wasn't a lucky play; it was the result of careful preparation and good tactical awareness. Palestine knew that Vietnam's goalkeeper often advances in the final minutes, and they waited for this opportunity. They read the game better. For Đình Bách, this is a costly lesson. He's young, and mistakes like this are part of growing up. I remember my own story, when I mispronounced a player's name three times on live broadcast during the 2026 World Cup. I was criticized, but I learned that mistakes don't define you; how you face them is what matters. Đình Bách may feel terrible, but he can turn this into motivation to improve his decision-making. Going down is a way of going up, and sometimes failure is the most beautiful motivation. But there's another aspect we need to consider: the role of the media. When a FIFA referee speaks, fans tend to believe immediately. But we need to verify information. In the age of social media, a flawed analysis can spread quickly and create a wave of outrage without basis. This not only harms the referee but also harms the team itself, as it creates an excuse to blame others instead of looking at their own shortcomings. I've followed many youth tournaments, and I've noticed that Southeast Asian teams often suffer from a 'victim mentality.' They easily feel unfairly treated, and this can become a vicious cycle. Instead of focusing on improving their skills, they spend too much time complaining about referees. This is not beneficial for long-term development. Looking back at the match, there's a bigger question: why did U20 Vietnam let the game reach a point where they had to use the goalkeeper's advance? That's a sign of attacking stagnation. If the team created enough chances throughout the match, they wouldn't need to gamble at 90+4. This is about creativity and attacking efficiency, not about the referee. 4-2-4 is not a formation, but a test of who dares to dream. But sometimes, courage needs to be tempered with wisdom. So, before blaming the referee, ask yourself: do we understand the law correctly? And instead of being angry, see this as an opportunity to improve your own football knowledge. Because, as I often say, 'Football is inherently a play of mistakes — I just contribute to making it more watchable.' And perhaps, controversies like this are what make the beautiful game more appealing, because they force us to think, to debate, and to learn. Finally, I want to say to the young players of U20 Vietnam: don't let one match define you. Look forward, learn from mistakes, and always remember that football is a long journey. Going down can be a way of going up, and today's failure can be the foundation for tomorrow's success. Keep dreaming, and keep fighting.