I think he called the handling offense. Look at what Maruffo is doing at :24; he's showing Holgerson how Lade handled the ball.
Yes, but the timing of the whistle, his movement and the point to the spot certainly makes it seem like he was initially calling the trip. It doesn't look like he starts to sell the handling call until Boskovic gives him the "yeah, you could have called the handball anyway" gesture at 0:12. It could be either, though. Either a late handling call or the subsequent (and maybe more dubious) tripping call.
My guess is that he got the advice over the mics for the handling call...which is why it was delayed.
Actually, I don't think it was so clear, because it didn't appear deliberate. That is, of course, open to interpretation, as handling is defined in the Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines as "the deliberate act of a player making contact with his hand or arm. The referee must take the following into consideration: • the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) • the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) • the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement But for all those who seem to like to state my ignorance of the LOTG, the interpretations also say Disciplinary sanctions: There are circumstances when a caution for unsporting behaviour is required when a player deliberately handles the ball, e.g. when a player: • deliberately and blatantly handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining possession And that COULD be argued for a second yellow (USB) on the RBNY player. But, as always, it's up to the referee's perspective and interpretation. I just say that Marrufo routinely does a poor job applying these interpretations consistently. Would it be poor game management to have issued a second yellow for that infringement, even though the law and interpretation would certainly justify the call? Yes. However, if he's going to apply that logic to that particular situation, he should apply it consistently throughout the match, and he does not. Which has been my point all along.
I thought that was what occurred, but the AR stayed with the offside, it seemed. I suppose it's possible that the AR advised for the handling/PK but kept his position and did not flag, just in case Marrufo disagreed (or because he didn't think it was appropriate to sell from across the field). But I'm not sure how likely that is.
Given that the handling was on the other side of the PA from the AR and would have been easily in Maruffo's line of sight I don't think the AR was giving any input there. Maybe the 4O had an angle. At the time I thought he was calling the trip, but after seeing the game on TV later the handling was much more obvious. And I agree he was demonstrating it to the defenders to explain it.
I thought this was crazy at first, but watching the replay...you might be right. I don't buy that he got help over the radio for the hand ball that quickly, and the delay doesn't make sense any other way, and that trip is totally sellable. It could just be as simple as the hand ball looked like an 80% pk, and that trip provided the other 20%. I'd buy that.
That is exactly what I thought when I saw the play and now believe even more after watching the replay. He seems to hesitate wrt the hand ball, but once the trip happened, he had more than enough on his side to call the PK. At that point, the actual foul call was immaterial.