Manchester City’s second goal in their 5-1 victory over Fulham on Saturday should not have been allowed, according to referees’ director Howard Webb.
Nathan Ake put City back in the lead, but Webb claims goalkeeper Bernd Leno hesitated because of an offside Manuel Akanji.
“It’s a clear situation of offside,” Webb said to the referees. Activated microphones.
The Premier League and referees’ union PGMOL are sharing game audio this season.
I believe this should have been forbidden from the start. “It appears Akanji has an effect on the goalkeeper who seems to hesitate,” Webb said on the premiere edition of Match Officials: Mic’d Up, which aired on Sky Sports and TNT Sports.
Webb said that VAR should have given Wolves a penalty kick at the end of their season opener against Manchester United.
He also said that referee John Brooks made the right call by sending out Virgil van Dijk of Liverpool in their game against Newcastle.
Manchester United’s Alejandro Garnacho’s goal against Arsenal was “rightly disallowed” due to offside.
Since its implementation in 2019, the use of VAR technology in the Premier League has been questioned and criticized by managers, players, and pundits across the league.
VAR does not overturn Man City’s 5-1 win over Fulham on September 2.
Why did this occur?
Ake’s diving header gave Manchester City a 2-1 lead against Fulham at home. As Fulham goalkeeper Leno checked Akanji’s diving attempt, the ball squeaked by. VAR The goal called by referee Michael Oliver was upheld by Tony Harrington.
To what do the authorities point?
Harrington, the VAR, says, “Checking the goal, checking the goal. Akanji is clearly in an illegal defensive position. Has he done anything obviously detrimental to the goalkeeper’s performance? To avoid being hit by the ball, he dodges to the side.
He makes a full-length save, in my judgment,” said Assistant Referee Adam Nunn. There may be an effect on the keeper, in my opinion, but how evident is that effect? I don’t think the goalie has any trouble following the ball.
Harrington, the VAR, says, “So the keeper sees it, there’s no difference, we’re delighted. Is it finished?
Nunn, A V A R, “Personally, I’m happy for check complete.”
Harrington, our VAR, said, “OK, check complete, check complete.”
The Reply from Webb
Trying to determine whether or not a player is offside and the subsequent repercussions of that decision can be challenging for officials.
I believe this should have been forbidden from the start. It looks that Akanji had an effect on Leno, the goalkeeper, making him pause.
We believe there was an obvious offside call that wasn’t made at the time. A mistake was made.
Man Utd 1-0 Wolves (14 August): VAR does not change no-penalty call.
Why did this occur?
Andre Onana, the Manchester United goalkeeper, collides with Sasa Kalajdzic of Wolves as they both try to clear a cross into the United penalty area deep into second-half stoppage time. No penalty is given by referee Simon Hooper, and VAR Michael Salisbury agrees with him.
To what do the authorities point?
Referee Hooper firmly stated, “No way, that’s a collision, we don’t give those.”
A referee from Salisbury says, “So Onana goes to challenge the ball…”
Hooper, the referee, shouts, “Goal-kick.”
Salisbury’s referee said, “Just delay. Waiting, waiting, wondering what the probable fine is.
Hooper, the referee: “No worries, mate.”
I suppose Onana crashes into it, therefore you should watch this,” said Salisbury, the video assistant referee. He dives for the ball, but in the process collides with the Wolves player in the air. I find it awkward and untimely. It’s quite late in the aerial contest, and Dawson wins the header.
If the Wolves player doesn’t head the ball and Dawson does, then the collision is just a regular contest for possession. Finished the check!
Referee Hooper has finished his inspection.
The Reply from Webb
The referee should have consulted the video board and a video review should have been recommended, as far as I’m concerned, right off the bat. If he had seen the same footage we did, he definitely would have given a penalty.
While the VAR is in the checking phase, no penalty is given. He considers suggesting an evaluation, but ends up giving it too much thought.
“VARs can sometimes accomplish that. They are attempting to determine what constitutes a blatant mistake in the game’s eyes and what doesn’t. We’ve seen it happen enough times to know that if these two touch, it’s not necessarily a foul.
“We admitted that was a mistake in the first week, which was discouraging. However, moving future, we will do our best to prevent a repeat of that mistake.
VAR upholds Newcastle’s loss to Liverpool, 1-2 Punishment of Virgil van Dijk (August 27)
Why did this occur?
With no other defender in sight, referee Brooks sends out Liverpool captain Virgil van Dijk for bringing down Newcastle forward Alexander Isak on the brink of the box. Decision upheld by VAR.
To what do the authorities point?
VAR “OK, he’s given it on the field,” said Stuart Atwell. Wait, wait, I just wanted to double-check. Good, I need a fresh perspective on the contact point.
Yes, that’s a major infraction. Hey Brooksy, it’s me, Stuart, checking in on sanction. Put a hold on it immediately.
That’s OK, the attacker is in good position without being challenged, and he’s about to charge headfirst into the penalty area.
Constantine Hatzidakis, the assistant referee, said, “Brooksy, just checking a tight offside in the build-up.”
According to referee Brooks, unless Van Dijk was offside, he would be thrown off the field. This is really, really snug, OK?
According to VAR Atwell, “He’s clearly onside mate – confirm upholding decision.”
Van Dijk, the referee tells you, “Go, go now, yes [there was] no offside.”
The Reply from Webb
We agree with referee John Brooks that there was a foul. Virgil van Dijk is seen playing the ball, but he is seen kicking through the foot of Alexander Isak to get there.
Not only is it a free-kick, but it also takes away a clear scoring chance for Isak. In this case, he must be sent off, and the VAR will confirm that.
