Arsenal handball claims, McTominay purple 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 most important 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: A complete host of handball penalty claims for Arsenal of their comeback win in opposition to AFC Bournemouth, in addition to one penalty for Manchester United at Liverpool and a purple 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 beneath strain from Fabio Vieira. He missed it along with his head and the ball struck his arm. Arsenal’s gamers appealed for a penalty.

VAR determination: 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 right down to the highest of the arm being thought-about a authorized place for the ball to hit.

The trendy interpretation (the entire arm all the best way as much as the shoulder was thought-about handball) may be very tough to use constantly. The logic is that the highest a part of the arm can’t make the silhouette of the physique greater it doesn’t matter what place it is in, so should not be thought-about 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 reveals how this must 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 tough one for any referee or VAR to evaluate.

Premier League officers have used the badge or sponsor brand 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, will probably be judged as authorized. So Mepham is fortunate the ball hits excessive sufficient up for the VAR to not turn out to be concerned.

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

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 determination: 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 direction of the ball and that may be a handball offence — if low on the arm. Again, the VAR, John Brooks, has determined it was too excessive on the arm and due to this fact a authorized play of the ball.

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

Possible penalty: Handball by Senesi

Read also  Jon Rahm seizes the lead at Riviera; Tiger Woods shoots 67

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

VAR determination: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: This is the simplest determination of the 4 for the officers. Senesi has his arm tucked in and it is not making his physique unnaturally greater, 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 beneath strain from Gabriel. For the fourth time, there have been appeals for a handball penalty.

VAR determination: 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 direction of aim and it hits the hand. The header being from point-blank vary saves the Bournemouth participant, along with his arm additionally being near his physique.

It would not be thought-about that Billing had stopped a aim, 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 means of VAR if awarded by the referee. Some could really feel Billing’s arm is ready which has stopped Gabriel’s effort on aim, no matter proximity.

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

What occurred: Billing scored the second-fastest aim 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 determination: No VAR intervention doable.

VAR evaluate: The VAR can’t rule on any begins or restarts — throw-ins, free kicks, and so forth — so can 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 direct retake of the kick-off.

Even if VAR was answerable for such incidents, Semenyo would not become involved within the play at any level so can be thought-about immaterial to the aim. It can be such a trivial offence to disallow a aim for.

Possible penalty: Alisson problem on Fernandes

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

VAR determination: 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 along with his leg, he has already made some contact with Fernandes along with his palms.

The solely query for the VAR, David Coote, is whether or not the best way Fernandes goes to floor matches the extent of contact. Did the Portugal worldwide embellish the best way he went to floor to attempt to win the spot kick? That might 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 purple 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 along with his observe by means of. Referee Madley selected to point out McTominay only a yellow card.

VAR determination: No purple card.

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

Read also  UCLA's Jaime Jaquez Jr.: Putting the Bruins 'again on the map'

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

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

Possible offside: Jota on Salah aim

What occurred: In the 83rd minute, Mohamed Salah scored Liverpool’s sixth aim — however there was a VAR verify for offside in opposition to Diogo Jota within the buildup.

VAR determination: No offside.

VAR evaluate: It would have been a type of offside choices few followers might’ve observed on the time, however there was a verify in opposition to 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 aim would have been disallowed if the Portugal worldwide was in an offside place.

Possible purple 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 point out the ahead a yellow card.

VAR determination: No purple card.

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

The deal with is reckless somewhat than harmful, so a yellow card is a suitable disciplinary final result.

Possible penalty overturn: Handball by Castagne

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

VAR determination: 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 along with his arm manner above his head. If the ball hit his arm, there’s solely going to be one final result. Even if the assistant hadn’t raised his flag to alert the referee, this could have been a sure VAR intervention.

Possible offside: Adams in buildup to Alcaraz aim

What occurred: Southampton scored the one aim 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 move by means of to Alcaraz to attain; there was a verify for a doable offside within the construct up in opposition to Adams.

VAR determination: Goal stands.

VAR evaluate: Another aim 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 most likely have been disallowed if semi-automated offside know-how was in use.

Possible penalty overturn: Shelvey foul on McNeil

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

VAR determination: Penalty stands, scored by Demarai Gray.

Read also  High faculty basketball: Southern California and Northern California Regional pairings

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

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 actually knew the place Shelvey’s leg was.

The ball could have hit the higher a part of Doucoure’s arm within the buildup, however 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 sturdy appeals for a spot kick within the twenty third minute when Seamus Coleman tried to interrupt alongside the goal-line and minimize a cross into the realm, however went to floor beneath a problem from Jack Colback. Brooks wasn’t within the claims for a penalty.

VAR determination: No penalty.

VAR evaluate: The type of problem which is simply 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 repeatedly 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 sphere, 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 determination: 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 purple 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 purple?

VAR determination: No straight purple card.

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

Doucoure does catch Chambers above the ankle, however he would not accomplish that with power. He would not be thought-about to be endangering the security of an opponent, so the second yellow card from Pawson can be thought-about sufficient.

Possible penalty overturn: Bowen foul on Mitoma

What occurred: Brighton & Hove Albion had 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 determination: Penalty stands.

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

Possible offside: Mitoma when scoring

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

VAR determination: No offside.

VAR evaluate: An fascinating offside determination to focus on. 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 could effectively have been in entrance of him and in an offside place.

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