PGMOL chairman Howard Webb believes upgrading William Saliba’s yellow card to a crimson card throughout Arsenal’s 2-0 loss to Bournemouth final month was the fitting resolution.
The French defender was proven a straight crimson card for knocking down Bournemouth striker Evan Nelson in the course of the first half of the Gunners’ defeat on the Vitality Stadium. The yellow card was upgraded after VAR Jared Gillett suggested Robert Jones to overview the choice on the sphere.
Saliba was initially booked for a last-man foul close to the middle circle following Trossard’s poor go, however referee Jones modified his resolution to a crimson card after a VAR verify, Arsenal’s third discount of the season to 10 folks.
Officers stated:
Please use Chrome browser for a extra handy video participant
Paul Merson says time will inform whether or not a crimson card will price Arsenal the title this season.
Assistant referee: For me, the protection defender is just too distant, however he cannot management the ball. It could really feel extra yellow than crimson. He has plenty of work to do.
Fourth Official: I agree, I agree with that.
referee: I feel be cautious due to Ben White. He was masking and from a distance, so the on-the-spot resolution was a yellow card for William Saliba.
Our: Study doable DOGSO selections (denied objective scoring alternatives). The goalie was backing away and White was too distant from the ball.
I feel that is clear proof of DOGSO, DOGSO. He’s on the facet of the objective the place the ball will solely come from the attacker. I’ll advocate an on-site overview of potential DOGSOs.
I’ll present you one other angle to point out the goalkeeper’s motion, contemplating it is clear flour and the way shut Ben White is to the ball.
referee: I am with you, Jared. I completely agree, Ben White is additional than we anticipated. It is a crimson card.
Weber’s verdict:
Please use Chrome browser for a extra handy video participant
Dermot Gallagher discusses why William Saliba was despatched off for a last-man deal with on Evan Nelson however Tosin Adarabioyo was not for Diogo Jota was despatched off for a foul.
I do consider that William Saliba’s assault on this scenario did deny Evan Nelson a transparent objective scoring alternative and subsequently the referee was fallacious to wave the yellow card on the sphere.
DOGSO has 4 standards: The primary is the course of play… in direction of the objective or away from the objective? Secondly, it’s the stance and place of the defender. Can they affect objective scoring probabilities? The third is the potential of the attacking workforce controlling the ball, and the fourth is the gap from the objective.
Sometimes, it’s important to take a look at all of those on the similar time, and all 4 normally must be in place to substantiate {that a} DOGSO has occurred.
Ought to Chelsea’s Tosin be despatched off on the identical precept?
Please use Chrome browser for a extra handy video participant
Talking on the match officers’ microphone, Howard Webb defined why Tosin Adarabioyo survived Chelsea’s knockout strike in opposition to Diogo Jota in opposition to Liverpool at Anfield.
occasion: Chelsea centre-back Tosin Adarabioyo was booked for the same incident when he introduced down Diogo Jota throughout Chelsea’s 2-1 loss to Liverpool. Obtained a yellow card.
Officers stated:
referee: Foul and yellow card.
Fourth Official: Get him again, man.
Assistant referee: yellow.
referee: Tosin, yellow. There’s a man there.
Our: Too distant, too many doubts.
Our: I am confirming, the yellow card resolution on the spot. Apparently there are too many doubts about DOGSO.
Weber’s verdict:
Each conditions occurred throughout the identical spherical. This occurs on a regular basis. On this case, Tosin was despatched off once more with a yellow card, stopping a promising assault.
The referee felt this was not DOGSO because the ball curved to the fitting.
For Saliba, the ball strikes in direction of the centre. One other key side for me was that Levi Colwell was close by. This occurs on the pitch and Colwell can actually affect it.
On this case I agree with the yellow card.
Was West Ham United’s penalty kick in opposition to Manchester United appropriate?
Please use Chrome browser for a extra handy video participant
PGMOL chairman Howard Webb advised the sport’s official Mic’d Up program that VAR was concerned in Matthijs de Ligt’s resolution in opposition to Danny Younger throughout Manchester United’s Premier League match in opposition to West Ham United. The foul name on Danny Ings was a mistake.
occasion: Manchester United defender Matthijs de Ligt made contact with West Ham striker Danny Ings, however David Coote initially waved play on. Coote awarded West Ham a penalty after Michael Oliver suggested him on VAR to take a look at the monitor, with Jarrod Bowen later scoring.
Officers stated:
referee: No, no, no.
Our: Simply checking for doable penalties…I feel this can be a penalty. De Ligt scored. Calf, sure. He missed the ball and speak to along with his legs.
Avar: I do not suppose De Ligt made contact with the ball. I agree.
Our: Kuti, I’d counsel an on-site overview of doable penalties.
referee: So now we have knee to knee contact.
Our: Sure, De Ligt’s calf made contact with Danny Ings and De Ligt didn’t make contact with the ball.
referee: We had knee-to-knee contact, however did Ings management the ball always?
Our: However he did not, he was transferring within the course of the ball and De Ligt made contact with Ings.
referee: So De Ligt is extra linked to us than Ince. We’ll impose penalties and no additional motion shall be taken.
Please use Chrome browser for a extra handy video participant
Sky Sports activities Information Ref Watch takes a better take a look at West Ham United’s resolution to award a late penalty at residence to Manchester United. Will this resolution in the end result in Erik ten Hag being fired?
Weber’s verdict:
I feel this was a misinterpret by VAR Michael Oliver. VARs are sometimes very proficient and dependable. On this case, De Ligt’s legs make him extraordinarily targeted.
His leg prolonged in direction of Danny Ings however didn’t make any contact with the ball. VAR thought it was a transparent foul however I do not suppose he ought to have been concerned.
I feel on this case you may reserve the on-the-spot resolution, irrespective of which manner it is referred to as. VAR was overly targeted on De Ligt’s swinging leg.
Referees are advised they’ve the fitting to face by their authentic resolution, however in fact when they’re despatched to the display they’re off as a result of VAR has recognized what they take into account to be an error. This judgment could also be fallacious, as on this case. They nonetheless want to take a look at the monitor and make the decision with new eyes.
Please use Chrome browser for a extra handy video participant
PGMOL chairman Howard Webb stated new strikes to lift the edge for handball penalties had been profitable and golf equipment have been happy with the choices.
Was VAR appropriate in awarding Manchester Metropolis a win in opposition to Wolves?
occasion: John Stones scored the successful objective for Manchester Metropolis in opposition to Wolves in harm time. Initially disallowed for offside, Bernardo Silva was dominated to be in goalkeeper Jose Sa’s sight. Nevertheless, a VAR overview resulted in a pitchside verify and in the end a objective.
Officers stated:
referee: Silva is in entrance of the goalkeeper.
Our: So, my solely concern is that the sight is offside.
Assistant referee: When the ball is available in, he [Silva] Transfer to the fitting.
referee: So that you’re glad he wasn’t offside?
Please use Chrome browser for a extra handy video participant
John Stones’ successful objective in opposition to Wolves within the Premier League was initially dominated out for offside, with VAR stopping a transparent error, Howard Webb stated whereas talking on the match officers’ microphone.
Assistant referee: He was offside, that is all I can let you know. I will be offside.
referee: Offside was decided on the sphere.
Our: Delay, delay, verify for offside. So operating it via…that is not offside, proper?
He was out of sight. He wasn’t attempting to hit the ball near him. He isn’t difficult an opponent… Kav [referee Chris Kavanagh] I’ll advocate an on-site overview of doable targets.
Bernardo Silva was within the six-yard field and he was undoubtedly out of sight. He wasn’t difficult, making no distracting strikes or attempting to hit the ball shut.
referee: My opinion is that there are not any distractions, the on-field resolution is now the objective.
Please use Chrome browser for a extra handy video participant
Dermot Gallagher discusses why John Stones’ late winner in opposition to Wolves wasn’t disallowed.
Weber’s verdict:
Not allowed in actual time. There was plenty of confusion over whether or not it was banned within the first place.
It was decided on the court docket that Bernardo Silva dedicated an offside foul when John Stones headed the ball ahead.
From that second on, Silva’s standing turned essential. However he was not offside as a result of he didn’t have an effect on the goalkeeper’s motion. When VAR reviewed the replay, he discovered that there was no offside and subsequently a objective was awarded.
Watch the match official on Tuesday at 7pm: Catch the motion on the mic on Sky Sports activities Premier League and keep within the loop on SkySports.com, the Sky Sports activities app and Sky Sports activities social channels.
