Danny Makkelie was denied access to decisive video evidence during a controversial penalty decision in the Feyenoord versus AZ Alkmaar clash, according to Dutch football analysts. The incident occurred just before half-time when Mexx Meerdink challenged Tjark Ernst in the box, leaving officials and commentators questioning the integrity of the VAR review process.
Referee Makkelie reviewed only side-on camera angles on the pitch-side monitor, spending several minutes examining footage that remained inconclusive about whether contact had occurred. What proved troubling for AZ supporters was the subsequent revelation that superior overhead and alternative angle footage existed—material that clearly illustrated foot-to-foot contact between the two players. This superior footage was never presented to Makkelie during his decision-making process.
Questions Over VAR Protocol
Kees Kwakman, analysing the match for ESPN, expressed frustration at the procedural breakdown. "How can it be that Makkelie was not shown that footage?" he asked, highlighting a fundamental flaw in how video evidence reaches match officials. VAR operator Erwin Blank faced similar scrutiny, with commentators suggesting he too may have been denied access to the clearer angles. The question of who selects footage for VAR operators remains unclear, with suggestions that technicians in the booth work independently rather than directing their own camera selection.
Ernst himself acknowledged the contact existed. In a post-match interview, the AZ defender admitted his foot moved slightly upon review, confirming what observers suspected from live play. However, Makkelie maintained his interpretation: even if contact occurred, it was insufficient for a penalty award. The referee cited two additional factors—the ball trajectory heading out of play and the minimal nature of the contact itself—as justification for his no-penalty ruling.
This incident raises broader concerns about VAR implementation in the Eredivisie, particularly regarding which footage reaches officials during crucial moments. The technology intended to eliminate human error instead became entangled in a procedural error, leaving AZ's penalty appeal unresolved on the evidence that mattered most. As Dutch football debates this breakdown, the consistency of VAR decision-making across European leagues faces renewed scrutiny.
