free geoip
22.2 C
New York
Friday, June 28, 2024

Bruno Fernandes penalty claims, Podence spitting

Watch Now Free

Video Assistant Referee causes controversy each week within the Premier League, however how are choices made, and are they right?

After every weekend we check out the key incidents, to look at and clarify the method each when it comes to VAR protocol and the Legal guidelines of the Recreation.

How VAR choices affected each Prem membership in 2022-23
VAR within the Premier League: Final information

On this week’s VAR Evaluation: Penalty incidents involving Manchester United‘s Bruno Fernandes and Newcastle United‘s Fabian Schar, a spitting incident by Wolverhampton Wanderers midfielder Daniel Podence, offside incidents in Manchester Metropolis vs. Liverpool, plus Arsenal‘s penalty towards Leeds United.

Doable penalty: Foul by Fernandes on Schar

What occurred: Within the seventy fifth minute, Newcastle United defender Fabian Schar went to floor contained in the six-yard field when he gave the impression to be caught by a excessive boot from Manchester United’s Bruno Fernandes. Referee Stuart Attwell waved play on and Man United broke ahead up the pitch.

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: It is uncommon {that a} high-boot offence is given towards the defending facet inside the world; often it have to be blatant to get penalised. Like many issues, there is a completely different interpretation inside the world, or for a high-boot offence by an attacker inside the world. Certainly, Fernandes conceded a free kick for a excessive boot on Alexander Isak outdoors the world within the eighth minute.

The VAR determined there was a transparent motion by Schar to stoop forwards and decrease his head to play the ball, whereas the Newcastle participant acquired a transparent header in direction of purpose that struck the submit and he wasn’t impacted. Fernandes was deemed to have made an inexpensive problem whereas contact with the opponent was minimal and a consequence of the actions of each gamers, who had been dedicated to enjoying the ball.

Teammate Scott McTominay appeared to grasp the doable offence, pulling out of making an attempt to kick the ball as Schar got here in to go it, however Fernandes went by together with his tried clearance.

Whereas Fernandes did solely make a small quantity of contact on Schar, a excessive boot with contact is a direct free kick, or a penalty when inside the world. It is unlikely to be thought-about an error to not give the penalty however gamers making an attempt to kick the ball on this manner ought to concentrate on the presence of others, so Fernandes was fortunate he did not make full contact with Schar which certainly would have been a sure penalty.

Doable penalty: Schar problem on Fernandes

What occurred: Within the thirty seventh minute, in a job reversal to the earlier incident, Fernandes went to floor within the field when challenged by Schar. Referee Attwell gave a purpose kick after a second of deliberation, however there have been claims for a penalty.

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: It isn’t fully clear whether or not it was Fernandes or Schar who acquired the contact on the ball, however even when the Newcastle participant is to it second it does not imply it is a penalty.

Fernandes shapes to play the ball to a teammate and makes contact with the ball. Schar is difficult Fernandes on the similar second and while there’s some contact, no intervention is in line with the desire to not penalise minimal contact.

There are similarities to the state of affairs between Arsenal‘s Takehiro Tomiyasu and AFC Bournemouth‘s Marcos Senesi a number of weeks in the past, when the 2 gamers acquired to the ball across the similar time. In that case the VAR did not really feel there was sufficient in it to warrant a penalty, a call supported by the unbiased evaluation panel; the identical final result is nearly sure on this case.

Doable crimson card: Spitting by Podence at Johnson

What occurred: There was a melee within the 89th minute after a problem between Diego Costa and Cheikhou Kouyate. Behind the again of referee Chris Kavanagh, there was an altercation between Daniel Podence and Brennan Johnson, with the suggestion the Wolves participant had spat on the Nottingham Forest participant. The VAR, Neil Swarbrick, appeared on the incident for a doable crimson card.

VAR resolution: No motion.

VAR evaluate: The VAR has to seek out proof that Podence did spit at Johnson, however there’s nothing in any of the replay angles that implies any saliva was projected.

From that, what appears almost certainly is Podence had simulated spitting, simply blowing out of his mouth. The VAR can’t go solely from the response of Johnson, who held his face.

It is all very a lot playground behaviour however not sufficient for the VAR to advise a crimson card has been missed.

If the spitting offence had been confirmed, Podence was dealing with a six-match suspension. There might be no retrospective motion, as there isn’t any proof and it has already been assessed.

Doable penalty: Foul by Gomes on Johnson

What occurred: Johnson broke into the world within the fortieth minute and went down after going previous Tote Gomes. Referee Kavanagh blew his whistle for simulation towards Johnson who was booked.

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: Relying on which angle you watch the replay from, there’s a case that there was a small quantity of contact on Johnson earlier than he went to floor. However the one manner the yellow card for diving could be cancelled is that if the VAR advises the referee it needs to be a penalty.

We usually talk about how contact will need to have a consequence for a penalty — however on the similar time the choice of the referee carries the load.

It signifies that if there is a small quantity of contact and the referee hasn’t awarded a penalty, the VAR is unlikely to intervene.

Johnson was in all probability unfortunate to get booked for diving, however the VAR won’t get entangled.

The referee ought to have awarded a free kick to Forest for a pull again on Johnson outdoors the world, however that is not inside the remit of the VAR.

Doable penalty: Felipe foul on Traore

What occurred: Adama Traore broke into the field within the 52nd minute and went down underneath a problem from Felipe, who was operating behind the ahead.

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: We frequently see this type of state of affairs, the place a ahead goes to floor with the impression of being “bundled” by an opponent. The VAR has to ask whether or not there’s sufficient contact for it to be thought-about a transparent and apparent error to not award the spot kick.

Felipe is fortunate, as a result of he has his hand on Traore’s shoulder and is operating the danger of a penalty kick.

But when the referee has seen the extent of contact between defender and attacker, and judged it to not be an offence, the VAR will depart the choice on the sector, whichever manner the official has gone.

Doable offside: Mahrez on Alvarez purpose

What occurred: Manchester Metropolis equalised within the twenty seventh minute by Julian Alvarez. Nonetheless, there was a doable offside earlier within the transfer when Kevin De Bruyne had performed the ball down the road for Riyad Mahrez to maneuver inside (watch right here.)

VAR resolution: Purpose stands.

VAR evaluate: It is a state of affairs which raised questions from Liverpool followers, as a result of Mahrez was out of image on the primary tv digital camera when De Bruyne performed the go.

However this wasn’t a case of the Metropolis participant being in a blind spot for the know-how, as we noticed with Bukayo Saka when Arsenal scored towards Liverpool earlier this season.

The VAR started the method of calculating the offside, inserting the road to the final Liverpool defender. Mahrez was so clearly onside, clearly nicely behind the defensive position, that it wasn’t vital for the VAR to finish full calibration with the know-how and the purpose was shortly cleared.

Doable offside: De Bruyne when scoring

What occurred: Metropolis took the lead straight after half-time when Alvarez switched the ball out onto the wing for Mahrez, who moved ahead and performed a sq. go to De Bruyne for the Belgian to attain (watch right here.)

VAR resolution: Purpose stands.

VAR evaluate: It is a quirk of the trendy offside regulation, whereby a participant would not commit an offside offence purely from their place, however solely their actions.

De Bruyne is in an offside place when the ball is cross-field go is made, however he is not lively as a result of it is performed to Mahrez.

When Mahrez then takes management of the go a brand new section is created, with De Bruyne’s place solely related when the go is performed to him — by which era he’s behind the ball and again onside.

Many would argue that De Bruyne is gaining some type of benefit from his place on the preliminary go, however this is not factored into the offside regulation.

Equally for Liverpool’s opening purpose, Diogo Jota operating by the centre was performed onside by Manuel Akanji. The place of Mohamed Salah is not related for the choice as he isn’t lively at this level within the transfer, although he could be the participant who scored.

Watch Now Free

Doable penalty: Ake foul on Gakpo

What occurred: Within the 59th minute, Cody Gakpo went to floor underneath a problem from Nathan Ake. Referee Simon Hooper waved away the penalty claims (watch right here.)

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: This was a traditional case of an attacker initiating contact to attempt to win a penalty. Gakpo locations his proper foot into Ake, making an attempt to offer the referee the impression a foul had taken place.

Even when the referee had given the spot kick, a evaluate to cancel it was virtually sure. There’s a stronger case for simulation towards Gakpo than there was for Forest ahead Johnson.

Doable penalty: Konsa foul on Chilwell

What occurred: Chelsea needed a penalty within the twenty fourth minute when Ben Chilwell went down on the sting of the field underneath a problem from Ezri Konsa. Referee Andy Madley wasn’t .

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: Chilwell was that he did not get the free kick, as a result of it does seem like a foul, however contact happened outdoors the world — and due to this fact not inside the remit of VAR.

The VAR can solely get entangled in missed free kicks if the foul is a red-card offence, so this resolution has to remain on the sector.

Disallowed purpose: Chilwell for push on Younger

What occurred: Chelsea thought they’d an equaliser in first-half stoppage time when Chilwell headed into the underside nook, however referee Madley blew for a push on Ashley Younger as quickly because the ball crossed the road. The VAR, Tony Harrington, was capable of test if the choice was right and presumably advise that it needs to be a purpose.

VAR resolution: No purpose.

VAR evaluate: As Chilwell had positioned each arms on the again of Younger earlier than heading the ball, the VAR is not going to intervene and say this was an incorrect resolution. It is a comfortable foul, however Madley clearly gestures he has disallowed the purpose because of this, so it can’t be a transparent and apparent error.

It may very well be argued Callum Wilson dedicated the same offence on Marcus Rashford earlier than scoring Newcastle’s second purpose towards Man United. Wilson positioned each arms on his opponent earlier than scoring — although with little power — however on this case the referee did not give the foul on the sector of play.

It exhibits a key false impression about VAR: its goal has by no means been to create overarching consistency. The consistency covers how and when a VAR intervenes. Because the referee’s resolution will at all times carry the load and create the reference level for the VAR, it is not presently doable for VAR to supply the consistency of decision-making.

Each could be thought-about to not be incorrect, so the VAR will not step in although related conditions may need completely different outcomes.

Doable penalty: Handball by Mings

What occurred: Chelsea had loud appeals for a penalty within the 61st minute, claiming handball by Tyrone Mings. Referee Madley wasn’t .

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: This enchantment was in all probability extra out of desperation from Chelsea gamers than the rest.

Mings was on the bottom when Emiliano Martinez made a save from Joao Felix, and the rebound hit the Aston defender on the highest of his shoulder — not a handball offence.

Doable penalty overturn: Ayling foul on Jesus

What occurred: Arsenal had been awarded a penalty within the thirty fifth minute when Gabriel Jesus went down underneath a problem by Luke Ayling.

VAR resolution: Penalty stands.

VAR evaluate: If there is a small quantity of contact and the referee hasn’t awarded a penalty, the VAR is unlikely to intervene. We talked about this with Brennan Johnson’s penalty declare in Forest vs. Wolves

But when there is a small quantity of contact and the referee has awarded a penalty, it won’t be overturned. So, within the case of Ayling on Jesus there was contact so there isn’t any grounds for a evaluate.

That stated, this incident is a bit of completely different, as although the contact wasn’t what you’d name important, it was excessive and related with Jesus’ knee. Even when referee Darren England hadn’t given the spot kick, there is a excessive probability the VAR would have intervened.

VAR penalty awarded / doable crimson card: Hickey handball

What occurred: Brighton & Hove Albion pushed ahead seeking an equaliser within the 86th minute, and Deniz Undav noticed his shot blocked by Aaron Hickey. Referee Michael Oliver gave a nook however the VAR, Stuart Attwell, suggested a evaluate for handball.

VAR resolution: Penalty awarded (scored by Alexis Mac Allister); yellow card to Hickey.

VAR evaluate: A simple evaluate for Attwell, because it was clear that Hickey had raised his arm and created a barrier to forestall Undav’s shot making its technique to purpose.

Brentford defender Pontus Johnson felt he was fouled when the cross got here in earlier than the ball dropped to Undav, however there wasn’t sufficient on this for a VAR intervention — very similar to Wilson on Rashford.

Hickey was solely proven a yellow card as a result of he did not deny a sure purpose. If there is a participant on the road within the path of the shot, which is often the goalkeeper, that can present sufficient doubt that the handball offence has denied a purpose, and solely a yellow card might be proven.

We noticed this within the FA Cup tie between Sheffield United and Blackburn Rovers, when a penalty was awarded for handball by VAR however solely a warning was given to the defender, Jack Robinson.

However within the case of Willian for Fulham at Manchester United the identical day, the Brazilian had no participant behind him when he dealt with on the goal-line, so denied a sure purpose and was despatched off.

Doable penalty: Handball by Hickey

What occurred: Deep into stoppage time the ball hit Hickey’s arm for a second time when Solly March tried a cross into the field. Referee Oliver waved away the penalty claims, and once more there was a VAR evaluate for a spot kick (watch right here.)

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: This time Hickey escaped a VAR intervention, with the arm in a pure place and the cross hit from shut proximity.

A key consideration is whether or not the defender’s arm has moved up because the ball is kicked, successfully creating an elevated barrier to cease its path. As Hickey’s arm stays roughly in the identical place, if something being withdrawn, it is not thought-about he has made a deliberate motion.

There is a larger probability this may be penalised in UEFA competitions, which has a decrease threshold for a handball offence, however this may not be penalised by the VAR within the Premier League. If the referee had given it then it could nicely have stood, however the VAR won’t intervene.

VAR overturn: Aguerd onside when scoring

What occurred: Nayef Aguerd thought he had headed West Ham United into the lead within the twenty fifth minute just for the assistant’s flag to go up for offside — the purpose was mechanically checked by the VAR, Peter Bankes.

VAR resolution: Purpose awarded.

VAR evaluate: After the error which noticed Brighton’s purpose at Crystal Palace wrongly disallowed for offside in March, a VAR is unlikely to take any possibilities in advanced offside conditions the place a number of gamers may very well be concerned.

The offside line was congested in the meanwhile Thilo Kehrer performed the free kick, which means the VAR would want to test a number of angles to make sure the right gamers had been plotted. (There are events when this is not doable, and the VAR has to go together with the on-field resolution due to an absence of proof.)

It took 3½ minutes, which is much too lengthy. When the ultimate traces had been displayed, Aguerd was onside by a big margin (proven by the hole between the inexperienced attacker’s line and the blue defender’s.)

It could have been a troublesome name for the assistant, with so many gamers transferring alongside the defensive position, and the three West Ham gamers who had been in an offside place didn’t change into concerned within the play or problem an opponent so can’t be lively.

This could all get a lot faster if the Premier League adopts semi-automated offside from subsequent season, which hasn’t but been confirmed however is probably going because of the limitations of the present know-how. That may mechanically map all 22 gamers utilizing bespoke cameras inside the roof of a stadium, which means the VAR would not must reply on the 5 tv cameras that are calibrated for the Hawk-Eye system.

Data supplied by the Premier League and PGMOL was used on this story.

Watch Now Free

Related Articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest Articles