The matchup between Universidad Católica and O'Higgins was a game that could not be summed up by the result alone.
After O'Higgins' 2-1 goal was disallowed, a penalty was awarded to Católica, and one review affected the two teams' scores in opposite ways.
This search term was observed in the Indonesian market, but that does not mean it indicates the actual location of the match or coverage.
3-Line Summary
1. Católica defeated O'Higgins
2. A penalty was awarded after the disallowed 2-1 goal
3. The coaches' assessments differed even after the victory
Why Was O'Higgins' 2-1 Goal Disallowed?
The match was played at Claro Arena. O'Higgins' Arnaldo Castillo scored the goal that made it 2-1 for his team, but a video review (VAR) followed. According to En Cancha's report, the review was not a process that looked only at the scoring play. The issue was whether Diego Corral had committed a foul inside Católica's penalty area before the goal.
After checking the monitor, the referee disallowed O'Higgins' goal and awarded Católica a penalty kick. O'Higgins lost a goal that could have put them ahead, while Católica immediately had a chance to retake the lead. Católica's Fernando Zampedri converted the penalty kick, giving his team the advantage once again.
Simply describing the incident as “the goal was disallowed” does not fully reveal the change in the match. Once the earlier foul was recognized, O'Higgins' goal lost its validity, and the same decision led to Católica's penalty kick. A single review erased one side's goal and created a scoring opportunity for the other.
From O'Higgins' perspective, the possibility of a 2-1 lead disappeared, and the opposition then moved ahead again through a penalty kick. From Católica's perspective, it was a moment Zampedri finished after the opportunity created by the review. This is also why the two teams had different starting points when interpreting the rest of the match.
The result confirmed by the provided reports is that, after the VAR review, the referee disallowed the goal and awarded a penalty, which Zampedri converted. The correctness of the decision should be distinguished from the assessments offered afterward by the parties involved; it is not a confirmed result in itself. The provided articles also contain no claim that the decision was later overturned.
O'Higgins' Assessment: “We Were More Dominant”
Lucas Bovaglio, O'Higgins' coach, said after the defeat that the result was unfair. In Cooperativa's report, he assessed that his team had been more dominant and mentioned that Católica goalkeeper Vicente Bernedo had made several saves in the second half. He also said that, although the defeat was very painful, he was proud of his players.
The point Bovaglio emphasized most strongly was the penalty incident. His explanation was that O'Higgins went from being in a position to lead 2-1 to being disadvantaged immediately afterward. He viewed that moment as having turned the match around. This was the O'Higgins coach's post-match position regarding the refereeing decision; the statement in the article itself does not constitute the conclusion of the decision.
He also said that, despite having absent players, those who received opportunities tried to make the most of them, and that the team had generally competed as expected. While saying that he usually speaks with referees, he stated that this time he was too angry to remain silent. He also mentioned Bastián Yáñez's sending-off in the previous match against Colo-Colo, saying to the effect that the team had recently been unlucky.
Bovaglio's comments were not merely dissatisfaction with one decision in isolation, but an assessment that combined the team's competitiveness in the match with its recent experiences. However, his view that they had been “more dominant” and that the penalty had been decisive were both the coach's interpretations. The confirmed course of the match and the coach's emotionally charged assessment should not be treated as the same thing.
Católica's Self-Criticism Despite the Victory
With this victory, Católica moved into the shared second-place group in the 2026 Primera División. That does not mean Católica viewed its performance as complete. Daniel Garnero offered a self-assessment to PrensaFútbol to the effect that the team “can do better.”
Garnero particularly identified allowing O'Higgins to control the ball in the second half as a problem. He believed that such a flow was undesirable in a home match. Católica conceded two goals from corner kicks, and there was also an assessment that Bernedo's saves stood out during several of O'Higgins' attacks.
The areas the coach mentioned involve both attack and defense. He explained that every team has fluctuations and that they are trying to find balance while raising individual performances. Therefore, this victory was not a conclusion that all problems had been solved, but rather reflected the Católica coach's plan to continue making improvements using the positive result as a foundation.
Católica's next domestic league fixture is an away match against Everton scheduled for September 5 in Viña del Mar. Garnero said that difficult matches would continue and that the team needed to respond well. This was not a statement predicting the next match's result, but an expression of the coach's awareness that the team still needed to find greater balance even after this victory.
In this matchup, the disallowed goal and the subsequent penalty incident remained O'Higgins' clearest sources of regret. For Católica, despite securing the victory, there was self-criticism about the second-half flow and the need to review its defense against corner kicks. It was a match that left one side claiming the result was unfair and the other assessing that it needed to improve.
References
Tags #UniversidadCatólica #UniversidadCatólica #O'Higgins #OHiggins #CatólicaO'Higgins #PrimeraDivisión #ChileanFootball #ClaroArena #VARReview #PenaltyKick #FernandoZampedri #LucasBovaglio #DanielGarnero