Arsenal handball claims, McTominay red card

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 Laws of the Game.

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

In this week’s VAR Review: An entire host of handball penalty claims for Arsenal of their comeback win towards AFC Bournemouth, in addition to one penalty for Manchester United at Liverpool and a red card for Scott McTominay. Plus all the large choices across the Premier League over the weekend.

Possible penalty: Handball by Mepham

What occurred: In the twenty fourth minute, Chris Mepham jumped to win a looping ball underneath strain from Fabio Vieira. He missed it together with his head and the ball struck his arm. Arsenal’s gamers appealed for a penalty.

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: This was the primary of an unbelievable 4 handball penalty appeals from Arsenal, and every one is roofed by a barely completely different space of the regulation. This one comes all the way down to the highest of the arm being thought of a authorized place for the ball to hit.

The trendy interpretation (the entire arm all the way in which as much as the shoulder was once thought of handball) could be very troublesome to use constantly. The logic is that the highest a part of the arm can not make the silhouette of the physique larger it doesn’t matter what place it is in, so should not be thought of handball.

The boundary is not the underside of the sleeve, it is described as being “in line with the bottom of the armpit.” The IFAB’s diagram exhibits how this needs to be judged when a participant is leaping, however figuring out the precise level on the arm that the floor of the ball touches, and the place the precise boundary line sits, is a troublesome one for any referee or VAR to evaluate.

Premier League officers have used the badge or sponsor emblem on a participant’s arm as a reference level, because it’s in the identical place on all shirts — whether or not they’re long-sleeved or short-sleeved. If the ball hits round this space, it will likely be judged as authorized. So Mepham is fortunate the ball hits excessive sufficient up for the VAR to not grow to be concerned.

That mentioned, if the ball had hit decrease on the arm, there could be an argument that Vieira’s nudge had brought about Mepham to overlook his header, ensuing within the handball.

Possible penalty: Sensi problem on Tomiyasu

What occurred: In the forty third minute, Takehiro Tomiyasu went to play a bouncing ball contained in the Bournemouth space. Marcos Senesi challenged for the ball on the similar time, however appeared to kick by the Arsenal participant in clearing the ball; play was allowed to proceed.

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: The VAR has determined that this was a case of two gamers going for the ball, with minimal contact and never sufficient to warrant a penalty.

It was definitely a 50-50 problem and each gamers did have the correct to go for the ball. But if Tomiyasu was attending to the ball first, why does Senesi have the correct to attach with the foot of his opponent in clearing the ball?

Without doubt it is one other resolution which might not have been overturned had the referee awarded it, and one other VAR on one other day might have seen it in a different way.

Possible penalty: Handball by Stephens

What occurred: In the 74th minute, Jack Stephens blocked a cross by Bukayo Saka. The ball got here off the defender’s arm and crashed again off the put up. Referee Chris Kavanagh ignored the requests for a penalty.

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: Stephens was exceptionally fortunate. He leans into Saka’s cross and the ball comes off his higher arm. Even although his arm is tucked into his physique, he strikes his physique in the direction of the ball and that will be a handball offence — if low on the arm. Again, the VAR, John Brooks, has determined it was too excessive on the arm and subsequently a authorized play of the ball.

In December, Manchester United needed a penalty towards Nottingham Forest in related circumstances. Remo Freuler leaned right into a ball and it hit his arm, however referee and VAR determined towards a penalty. The unbiased evaluation panel judged it was a missed intervention and United ought to have been awarded a spot kick by VAR — however the contact on Freuler was decrease than Stephens.

Possible penalty: Handball by Senesi

What occurred: In the 79th minute, Martin Odegaard‘s shot was blocked by Senesi. Yet once more there have been claims for a penalty for handball.

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: This is the simplest resolution of the 4 for the officers. Senesi has his arm tucked in and it isn’t making his physique unnaturally larger, and the shot is from shut proximity. A penalty should not be awarded for this.

Possible penalty: Handball by Billing

What occurred: From the ensuing nook after the earlier handball declare, the ball bounced up and was stopped near the road by Philip Billing underneath strain from Gabriel. For the fourth time, there have been appeals for a handball penalty.

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: Perhaps probably the most controversial of the claims. Billing is simply in entrance of the goal-line when Gabriel heads in the direction of purpose and it hits the hand. The header being from point-blank vary saves the Bournemouth participant, together with his arm additionally being near his physique.

It would not be thought of that Billing had stopped a purpose, which might be a red-card offence, as goalkeeper Neto is behind him.

This might be the one handball which would not have been modified by VAR if awarded by the referee. Some might really feel Billing’s arm is ready which has stopped Gabriel’s effort on purpose, no matter proximity.

Possible disallowed purpose: Encroaching on a kick-off by Semenyo

What occurred: Billing scored the second-fastest purpose in Premier League historical past after simply 9.11 seconds, however Antoine Semenyo was already within the Arsenal half earlier than Dominic Solanke had taken the kick-off.

VAR resolution: No VAR intervention attainable.

VAR evaluate: The VAR can not rule on any begins or restarts — throw-ins, free kicks, and so on — so could be unable to intervene on a participant being within the opposition’s half at kick-off. This is one thing the on-field crew has to identify and order a right away retake of the kick-off.

Even if VAR was liable for such incidents, Semenyo does not become involved within the play at any level so could be thought of immaterial to the purpose. It could be such a trivial offence to disallow a purpose for.

---

Possible penalty: Alisson problem on Fernandes

What occurred: In the 54th minute, Liverpool have been taking part in the ball across the again, and Alisson let the ball slip underneath his foot. Bruno Fernandes closed him down and the goalkeeper dived at his toes, however earlier than taking part in the ball together with his legs he appeared to catch the Manchester United participant.

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: This might simply have been a penalty, when the rating was 3-0, with the goalkeeper making a rash try and make up for his personal error. While he does get a contact on the ball together with his leg, he has already made some contact with Fernandes together with his fingers.

The solely query for the VAR, David Coote, is whether or not the way in which Fernandes goes to floor matches the extent of contact. Did the Portugal worldwide embellish the way in which he went to floor to attempt to win the spot kick? That will likely be within the thoughts of Coote when he’s assessing the state of affairs, but when referee Madley had pointed to the penalty spot it undoubtedly would not have been overturned by the VAR.

Possible red card: McTominay on Gakpo

What occurred: In the sixty fourth minute, Scott McTominay slid in to deal with Cody Gakpo, received the ball however caught the Liverpool participant together with his observe by. Referee Madley selected to indicate McTominay only a yellow card.

VAR resolution: No red card.

VAR evaluate: McTominay was lucky, as a result of that is a type of challenges that may stick with the on-field resolution whichever approach the referee choses to go. McTominay was in management in the way in which he went to floor, and whereas he received the ball he did make contact together with his opponent above the ankle together with his observe by.

Intent is not related in terms of judging endangering the security of an opponent, so “winning the ball” does not come into the equation.

Could McTominay have gotten his foot out of the way in which of Gakpo? Perhaps, nevertheless it’s not a transparent and apparent error for the referee to decide on to indicate a yellow card.

Possible offside: Jota on Salah purpose

What occurred: In the 83rd minute, Mohamed Salah scored Liverpool’s sixth purpose — however there was a VAR test for offside towards Diogo Jota within the buildup.

VAR resolution: No offside.

1̷2̷8̷
129

Breaking yet one more document in Red and changing into our main @PremierLeague scorer 👑

A particular, particular footballer. pic.twitter.com/0D4C60l3nh

— Liverpool FC (@LFC) March 5, 2023

VAR evaluate: It would have been a type of offside choices few followers might’ve seen on the time, however there was a test towards Jota who might have been in entrance of the final defender when the ball is touched by Roberto Firmino.

Jota then runs throughout the six-yard space and challenges Luke Shaw for the ball, so the purpose would have been disallowed if the Portugal worldwide was in an offside place.

---

Possible red card: Alcaraz for foul on Castagne

What occurred: In the twenty first minute, Carlos Alcaraz caught Timothy Castagne with a late problem, and referee Robert Jones opted to indicate the ahead a yellow card.

VAR resolution: No red card.

VAR evaluate: Alcaraz, who would go on to attain the one purpose of the sport, caught Castagne on the highest of the foot. If he had made contact any increased, it will absolutely have been a red card due to the way in which he introduced his foot down onto his opponent.

The deal with is reckless fairly than harmful, so a yellow card is a suitable disciplinary consequence.

Possible penalty overturn: Handball by Castagne

What occurred: Southampton have been awarded a penalty kick within the thirty first minute when Castagne blocked an tried cross into the world by Theo Walcott. Referee Jones pointed to the spot.

VAR resolution: Penalty stands, James Ward-Prowse’s spot kick saved by Danny Ward.

VAR evaluate: A textbook handball offence. Castagne goes in to dam a cross together with his arm approach above his head. If the ball hit his arm, there’s solely going to be one consequence. Even if the assistant hadn’t raised his flag to alert the referee, this may have been a sure VAR intervention.

Possible offside: Adams in buildup to Alcaraz purpose

What occurred: Southampton scored the one purpose of the sport within the thirty fifth minute when Ainsley Maitland-Niles performed a ball to Che Adams, who was stood alongside the line of defense and spun to launch a reverse cross by to Alcaraz to attain; there was a test for a attainable offside within the construct up towards Adams.

VAR resolution: Goal stands.

VAR evaluate: Another purpose saved by the tolerance stage utilized to offside within the Premier League, proven by a single inexperienced line drawn to the final defender showing on the VAR picture.

This would in all probability have been disallowed if semi-automated offside expertise was in use.

---

Possible penalty overturn: Shelvey foul on McNeil

What occurred: Everton have been awarded a penalty within the ninth minute when Dwight McNeil was tripped by Jonjo Shelvey. There was a double test for the VAR, Paul Tierney — for the foul itself but in addition a attainable handball within the buildup by Abdoulaye Doucoure.

VAR resolution: Penalty stands, scored by Demarai Gray.

VAR evaluate: Shelvey tries to make a deal with, does not get the ball and locations his leg into the trail of McNeil’s flip inside the world.

McNeil did use the problem from Shelvey, however as soon as referee John Brooks has given the penalty it will not be overturned. The Everton participant did not provoke the contact, as he was already within the path of the deal with, however he definitely knew the place Shelvey’s leg was.

The ball might have hit the higher a part of Doucoure’s arm within the buildup, nevertheless it must be a deliberate act to cancel the spot kick, and there was no proof of this.

Possible penalty: Colback problem on Coleman

What occurred: Everton had robust appeals for a spot kick within the twenty third minute when Seamus Coleman tried to interrupt alongside the goal-line and reduce a cross into the world, however went to floor underneath a problem from Jack Colback. Brooks wasn’t within the claims for a penalty.

VAR resolution: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: The sort of problem which is just going to lead to a penalty if given by the referee. It’s Coleman who kicks Colback, however there might nonetheless have been a penalty because the Forest participant was limiting the house of the attacker within the space.

We often see penalties awarded when a defender has clipped an attacker, inflicting him to journey. This is alongside the identical traces — a penalty if given on the sector, however not a state of affairs the VAR will become involved in as a transparent and apparent error.

---

Possible offside: Zaha when scoring

What occurred: Wilfried Zaha gave Crystal Palace the lead within the fourth minute, however there was a evaluate for offside.

VAR resolution: Goal disallowed.

VAR evaluate: Unfortunate for Zaha, who simply went too early. There is a transparent hole between the attacking and defensive offside traces.

Possible straight red card: Doucoure for problem on Chambers

What occurred: Cheick Doucoure fouled Calum Chambers within the 62nd minute. Referee Craig Pawson performed benefit and when the assault broke down went again and booked Doucoure, which was his second yellow card. But was the problem worthy of a straight red?

VAR resolution: No straight red card.

VAR evaluate: Even although Doucoure was despatched off for a second yellow card, it’s nonetheless attainable for the VAR to provoke a evaluate for a straight red. That may appear unusual, contemplating the participant had been despatched off anyway, however critical foul play would carry a three-match bar fairly than the one he’ll obtain for 2 cautions.

Doucoure does catch Chambers above the ankle, however he does not achieve this with pressure. He would not be thought of to be endangering the security of an opponent, so the second yellow card from Pawson could be thought of ample.

---

Possible penalty overturn: Bowen foul on Mitoma

What occurred: Brighton & Hove Albion have been awarded a penalty within the seventeenth minute when Kaoru Mitoma was bundled to the bottom by Jarrod Bowen, and referee Stuart Attwell pointed to the spot.

VAR resolution: Penalty stands.

VAR evaluate: Another simple resolution for the referee if not a stonewall spot kick. Bowen is available in from the facet and knocks Mitoma to the bottom. There could be no probability of a VAR intervention from Peter Bankes.

Possible offside: Mitoma when scoring

What occurred: Mitoma scored Brighton’s third purpose within the 69th minute, tapping house from shut vary after a cross-shot from Pascal Gross. There was a test for offside.

VAR resolution: No offside.

VAR evaluate: An attention-grabbing offside resolution to spotlight. It was clearly an accurate name, however Mitoma was solely onside as a result of Emerson had caught out a leg to attempt to block the cross from Gross. Had Emerson been in a standing place, Mitoma might effectively have been in entrance of him and in an offside place.

Information offered by the Premier League and PGMOL was used on this story.