Another Controversial Offside Call in Jeju- Gangwon Match: Two Balls on Field, Yet Game Continues Before Equalizer... Korean Football Association Says Referee Determined It Did Not Affect Play

*This content was translated by AI.

In the matchup between JejuSK and Gangwon FC in professional soccer, several controversial officiating decisions emerged. Regarding the scene where Gangwon forward Abdalla’s header goal was disallowed for offside in the 38th minute of the second half, the Korean Football Association (KFA) stated it was a “correct call.”

Another controversy arose around the 26th minute of the first half when the game continued with two balls present on the field.

Jeju and Gangwon drew 1-1 in the 19th round of the Hana Bank K League 1 2026, held at Jeju World Cup Stadium on the 21st. Jeju took the lead with a first-half goal by Kim Shin-jin in the 21st minute.

However, five minutes later, they conceded an equalizer to Gangwon’s Go Young-jun.

This sequence raised doubts among many soccer fans because two balls were simultaneously present on the field just before Gangwon’s equalizing goal.

Here is how it unfolded: Before Gangwon attempted a free kick from their own half, Jeju goalkeeper Kim Dong-jun and Gangwon defenders each held a ball. Kim Dong-jun passed the ball he was holding toward Gangwon’s side, while a Gangwon player also rolled another ball backward.

However, Gangwon immediately resumed play with a free kick. The ball handed over by Kim Dong-jun remained on the field. As play suddenly continued, Jeju players were briefly seen hesitating. Nevertheless, referee Kim Woo-sung did not stop the match.

Gangwon continued their attack. Go Young-jun quickly advanced, received a pass from Kim Dae-won, and scored the equalizing goal himself.

However, the mere presence of two balls on the field does not automatically require stopping play. According to the rules, if an extra ball enters during a match while another is in use, the referee stops play only if that extra ball interferes with the action. If play is stopped, it resumes with a dropped ball. Ultimately, the key lies in the referee’s judgment on whether the extra ball actually affected the play.

The KFA explained similarly. Through StarNews, the association stated: “While this incident was not separately reviewed at the Referee Evaluation Committee meeting, it appears the on-field officials judged that the presence of two balls did not affect the play.”

On this day, the association also announced the outcome of a review by the Referee Evaluation Committee regarding the disallowed goal by Abdalla in the same match.

In the 38th minute of the second half, Abdalla appeared to break the 1-1 tie with a header from close range. However, after video assistant referee (VAR) review, the goal was disallowed. The reason was difficult to discern solely from broadcast footage because Abdalla’s position at the moment he attempted the header did not appear problematic.

Ultimately, the precise reason for the disallowance was not displayed on screen, and the match ended in a draw.

The association stated: “Although Abdalla’s goal was disallowed, the reason could not be confirmed from broadcast footage.” It further explained: “Prior to this goal, Abdalla interfered with play from an offside position, constituting an offense. Gangwon then maintained possession and continued their attack, which led to the goal.”

It added: “The VAR officials reviewed the entire sequence leading to the goal and identified this offside infraction during that process. Consequently, the goal was disallowed, and play resumed with an indirect free kick from the location of the initial offense.”

The association emphasized that VAR review of goal-scoring situations is not limited to the final shot alone. If possession remains uninterrupted until a goal is scored, reviewing the entire attacking phase leading to the goal is the standard procedure under the rules.

The problematic offside scene was not broadcast on television. However, VAR officials can access additional camera angles not captured in the main broadcast feed.

The association stated: “Ultra-close offside calls that are difficult to identify with the naked eye are a primary focus of VAR review. This case demonstrates that the VAR procedure functioned correctly, leading to an accurate decision.”

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.