Bruno Fernandes penalty claims, Podence spitting


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

After every weekend we check out the main incidents, to look at and clarify the method each when it comes to VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

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

In this week’s VAR Review: 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 City vs. Liverpool, plus Arsenal’s penalty towards Leeds United.

Possible penalty: Foul by Fernandes on Schar

What occurred: In 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 choice: No penalty.

VAR assessment: It’s 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.

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 obtained a transparent header in direction of aim that struck the publish and he wasn’t impacted. Fernandes was deemed to have made an affordable problem whereas contact with the opponent was minimal and a consequence of the actions of each gamers, who have been dedicated to enjoying the ball.

Teammate Scott McTominay appeared to understand the doable offence, pulling out of attempting to kick the ball as Schar got here in to move it, however Fernandes went by means of along with his tried clearance.

While 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’s unlikely to be thought of an error to not give the penalty however gamers attempting to kick the ball on this method ought to pay attention to the presence of others, so Fernandes was fortunate he did not make full contact with Schar which absolutely would have been a sure penalty.

Possible penalty: Schar problem on Fernandes

What occurred: In 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 aim kick after a second of deliberation, however there have been claims for a penalty.

VAR choice: No penalty.

VAR assessment: It’s not fully clear whether or not it was Fernandes or Schar who obtained the contact on the ball, however even when the Newcastle participant is to it second it doesn’t suggest 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 identical 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 scenario between Arsenal’s Takehiro Tomiyasu and AFC Bournemouth’s Marcos Senesi just a few weeks in the past, when the 2 gamers obtained to the ball across the identical 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 end result is nearly sure on this case.

Possible 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, regarded on the incident for a doable crimson card.

VAR choice: No motion.

VAR assessment: The VAR has to search 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 probably is Podence had simulated spitting, simply blowing out of his mouth. The VAR can not go solely from the response of Johnson, who held his face.

It’s 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 a proof and it has already been assessed.

Possible 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 choice: No penalty.

VAR assessment: Depending 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. But the one method the yellow card for diving might be cancelled is that if the VAR advises the referee it needs to be a penalty.

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

It implies 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 is not going to get entangled.

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

Possible penalty: Felipe foul on Traore

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

VAR choice: No penalty.

VAR assessment: We typically see this type of scenario, 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 of 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 working the chance of a penalty kick.

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

Possible offside: Mahrez on Alvarez aim

What occurred: Manchester City equalised within the twenty seventh minute by means of Julian Alvarez. However, 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 here.)

VAR choice: Goal stands.

VAR assessment: It’s a scenario which raised questions from Liverpool followers, as a result of Mahrez was out of image on the principle tv digicam when De Bruyne performed the cross.

But this wasn’t a case of the City 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 effectively behind the defensive position, that it wasn’t essential for the VAR to finish full calibration with the know-how and the aim was rapidly cleared.

Possible offside: De Bruyne when scoring

What occurred: City 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. cross to De Bruyne for the Belgian to attain (watch here.)

VAR choice: Goal stands.

VAR assessment: This is a quirk of the trendy offside regulation, whereby a participant does 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 cross is made, however he is not energetic as a result of it is performed to Mahrez.

When Mahrez then takes management of the cross a brand new section is created, with De Bruyne’s place solely related when the cross is performed to him — by which period 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 cross, however this is not factored into the offside regulation.

Similarly for Liverpool’s opening aim, Diogo Jota working by means of the centre was performed onside by Manuel Akanji. The place of Mohamed Salah is not related for the choice as he is not energetic at this level within the transfer, though he can be the participant who scored.

Possible penalty: Ake foul on Gakpo

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

VAR choice: No penalty.

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

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

Possible penalty: Konsa foul on Chilwell

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

VAR choice: No penalty.

VAR assessment: Chilwell was that he did not get the free kick, as a result of it does seem like a foul, however contact befell exterior the world — and subsequently not throughout the remit of VAR.

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

Disallowed aim: Chilwell for push on Young

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 Young as quickly because the ball crossed the road. The VAR, Tony Harrington, was in a position to verify if the choice was appropriate and presumably advise that it needs to be a aim.

VAR choice: No aim.

VAR assessment: As Chilwell had positioned each fingers on the again of Young earlier than heading the ball, the VAR is not going to intervene and say this was an incorrect choice. It’s a tender foul, however Madley clearly gestures he has disallowed the aim for that reason, 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 aim towards Man United. Wilson positioned each fingers on his opponent earlier than scoring — although with little pressure — 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 intention has by no means been to create overarching consistency. The consistency covers how and when a VAR intervenes. As the referee’s choice will at all times carry the load and create the reference level for the VAR, it is not at present doable for VAR to supply the consistency of decision-making.

Both might be thought of to not be mistaken, so the VAR will not step in though comparable conditions might need completely different outcomes.

Possible 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 choice: No penalty.

VAR assessment: This enchantment was in all probability extra out of desperation from Chelsea gamers than anything.

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.

Possible penalty overturn: Ayling foul on Jesus

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

VAR choice: Penalty stands.

VAR assessment: 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 if there is a small quantity of contact and the referee has awarded a penalty, it is not going to be overturned. So, within the case of Ayling on Jesus there was contact so there is not any grounds for a assessment.

That stated, this incident is a bit completely different, as though the contact wasn’t what you’ll name vital, it was excessive and related with Jesus’ knee. Even if 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 searching for 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 assessment for handball.

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

VAR assessment: An simple assessment for Attwell, because it was clear that Hickey had raised his arm and created a barrier to stop Undav’s shot making its approach to aim.

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 aim. If there is a participant on the road within the path of the shot, which is often the goalkeeper, that may present sufficient doubt that the handball offence has denied a aim, 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 means of VAR however solely a warning was given to the defender, Jack Robinson.

But 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 aim and was despatched off.

Possible 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 assessment for a spot kick (watch here.)

VAR choice: No penalty.

VAR assessment: 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 of he has made a deliberate motion.

There’s a better probability this could be penalised in UEFA competitions, which has a decrease threshold for a handball offence, however this would possibly not be penalised by the VAR within the Premier League. If the referee had given it then it might effectively have stood, however the VAR is not going to 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 aim was robotically checked by the VAR, Peter Bankes.

VAR choice: Goal awarded.

VAR assessment: After the error which noticed Brighton’s aim at Crystal Palace wrongly disallowed for offside in March, a VAR is unlikely to take any probabilities 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 verify a number of angles to make sure the right gamers have been plotted. (There are events when this is not doable, and the VAR has to go together with the on-field choice due to an absence of proof.)

It took 3½ minutes, which is much too lengthy. When the ultimate traces have 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 would have been a tough name for the assistant, with so many gamers shifting alongside the defensive position, and the three West Ham gamers who have been in an offside place didn’t change into concerned within the play or problem an opponent so can’t be energetic.

This ought to 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 will robotically map all 22 gamers utilizing bespoke cameras throughout the roof of a stadium, which means the VAR does not need to reply on the 5 tv cameras that are calibrated for the Hawk-Eye system.

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


Source link

Related Articles

Back to top button