PGMOL chief executive Howard Webb believes Arsenal made the right decision to upgrade William Saliba’s yellow card to a red in their 2-0 loss to Bournemouth last month.
The French defender received a straight red card for bringing down Bournemouth striker Evanilsen in the first half of the Gunners’ defeat at the Vitality Stadium. The call was upgraded from a yellow card after VAR Jarred Gillett advised Robert Jones to review his on-field decision.
Saliba was initially booked for a final foul near the center circle after a poor pass from Leandro Trossard, but referee Jones changed the decision to a red after a VAR check as Arsenal were reduced to 10 men for the third time this season.
Officials said:
Use the Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Paul Merson says only time will tell whether the sending off will cost Arsenal the title this season.
Assistant referee: I think the covering defender is too far away but not in control of the ball. I think it feels closer to yellow than red. He has a lot to do.
Fourth referee: I agree. I agree.
judgment: I feel like I need to be careful because of Ben White. Since he is a cover man and is very far away, the on-field decision is a yellow card, William Saliba.
Our: Check decisions for possible DOGSOs (denial of goal scoring opportunities). The goalkeeper is backing away and White is too far from the ball.
I think it’s DOGSO, clear evidence of DOGSO. He will be on the goal side and the ball will only be in possession from the attacker. I would recommend an on-site review of potential DOGSOs.
Things to consider are the transparent powder, the distance between Ben White and the ball, and I’d like to show another angle to show the goalkeeper’s movements.
judgment: I’m with you, Jared. I completely agree. Ben White is further along than we expected. It’s a red card.
Web’s Verdict:
Use the Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Dermot Gallagher explains why William Saliba was sent off for a final tackle on Evanilson but Tosin Adarabioyo did not commit a foul on Diogo Jota.
I believe that the offense committed by William Saliba in this situation denied Evanilson an obvious scoring opportunity and therefore the referee’s call to wave a yellow card on the field was wrong.
DOGSO has four criteria: The first is the direction of play. Are you heading toward the goal or away from it? Second, the position and position of the defender. Can they influence scoring chances? The third is the probability that the attacker will control the ball, and the fourth is the distance from the goal.
Quite often you have to look at all of these together and usually you need all four to confirm that a DOGSO has occurred.
Should Tosin be sent off from Chelsea on the same principle?
Use the Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Howard Webb explains on Match Official Mic’d Up why Tosin Adarabioyo survived a red card after bringing down Diogo Jota as Chelsea faced Liverpool at Anfield .
case: Chelsea centre-back Tosin Adarabioyo received a yellow card for a similar incident when he brought down Diogo Jota during Chelsea’s 2-1 loss to Liverpool. A yellow card was given.
Officials said:
judgment: Foul and yellow.
Fourth referee: Pull him back, buddy.
Assistant referee: yellow.
judgment: Tosin, yellow. There’s a man there.
Our: There is too much distance and too much doubt.
Our: Confirm on-field yellow card decisions. There are too many doubts about DOGSO.
Web’s Verdict:
The two situations were compared as if they occurred in the same match round. It happens often. This time, the on-field decision was a yellow card for Tosin, who blocked a promising attack in this situation.
The referee felt this was not a DOGSO because the ball arced to the right.
Using Saliba will direct the ball towards the center. Another important aspect is that Levi Colwill is pretty close. It happened on the field and Colwill would undoubtedly have been able to influence the situation.
I agree with getting a yellow card in this situation.
Did West Ham have the right to take a penalty against Manchester United?
Use the Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Speaking to Match Official Mic’d Up, PGMOL chief executive Howard Webb said VAR’s decision to award a penalty to Matthias de Ligt for a foul on Danny Ings during Manchester United’s Premier League match against West Ham was a mistake.
case: Manchester United defender Matthias de Ligt made contact with West Ham striker Danny Ings, but David Coote initially motioned for play to continue. Coote awarded a penalty to West Ham, which Jarrod Bowen scored, after VAR suggested Michael Oliver go to the monitor.
Officials said:
judgment: No, no, no.
Our: If you just check the possible penalties… I think this is a penalty. De Ligt puts his foot in. Lower leg, right. He misses leg contact with the ball.
Avar: I think De Ligt is not making contact with the ball. I agree.
Our: Mr. Kuti, I would recommend an on-site review as there may be a penalty.
judgment: So we had knee-to-knee contact.
Our: Yes, De Ligt made lower leg contact with Danny Ings and De Ligt did not make contact with the ball.
judgment: We have knee-to-knee contact, but can Ings control the ball at any point?
Our: He wasn’t like that. He was moving in the direction of the ball and De Ligt made contact with Ings.
judgment: So we had more contacts from De Ligt than from Ings. A penalty will be imposed and no further action will be taken.
Use the Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sky Sports News Ref Watch takes a closer look at the decision to award West Ham a late penalty at home to Manchester United. Was that the decision that ultimately led to Erik ten Hag’s dismissal?
Web’s Verdict:
I thought VAR Michael Oliver misread it. Generally a very talented and reliable VAR. He showed great concentration in this situation with De Ligt’s legs.
His legs are coming towards Danny Ings but he does not make contact with the ball. VAR considers it a clear foul, but I don’t think he should have intervened.
I think this is probably a situation where you leave the on-the-ground decisions, whatever you want to call it. VAR was too focused on De Ligt’s swinging leg.
The referee is told that he has the right to stick to his original decision, but of course when it appears on the screen, the referee goes ahead with it because VAR recognized it as an error. As in this case, that judgment may be wrong. Still, you have to look at the monitor with fresh eyes and make a call.
Use the Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
PGMOL chief executive Howard Webb suggested the new higher standards for awarding penalties for handballs had been successful and clubs were satisfied with the decision.
Did VAR have the right to award Manchester City a late winner against Wolves?
case: John Stones scored an extra-time winner for Wolves at Man City. It was originally disallowed for offside as Bernardo Silva was judged to be in goalkeeper Jose Sa’s sights. However, the VAR review led to a stadium inspection and the goal was eventually recognized.
Officials said:
judgment: Silva is in front of the goalkeeper.
Our: So the only concern I have here is about offside vision.
Assistant referee: When the ball comes in, he (Silva) moves to the right flank.
judgment: So are you glad he wasn’t offside?
Use the Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Speaking to the match official Mic’d Up, Howard Webb suggested VAR prevented a clear and obvious error after John Stones’ winning goal was initially ruled out for offside at Wolves in the Premier League.
Assistant referee: He is in an offside position. That’s all I can say. I’m going offside.
judgment: The on-field decision is offside.
Our: Confirmation of on-field decisions for delays, delays and offsides. So go all the way… That’s not offside, right?
He is out of sight. He doesn’t try to play the ball close to him. It’s not about challenging the opponent… Kav (Referee Chris Kavanagh) I would recommend an on-field review for a possible goal.
Bernardo Silva is in the six-yard box but clearly out of sight. He is not challenging, makes no distracting moves and does not try to play close balls.
judgment: In my opinion, there is no interference at all. Now decisions on the field are the goal.
Use the Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Dermot Gallagher explains why John Stones was disallowed in a late win against Wolves.
Web’s Verdict:
Real time was not allowed. At first there was great confusion as to whether it was unauthorized.
Judging from the field, it was determined that Bernardo Silva was offside when John Stones was aiming the ball forward.
From that moment on, Silva’s position became important. However, he was not guilty of an offside offense as he had no influence on the goalkeeper’s movements. VAR checked the replay and saw that there had been no offside offense and the goal could have been awarded.
Watch the match official: Watch Mic’d Up on Sky Sports Premier League on Tuesdays at 7pm and catch up on SkySports.com, the Sky Sports app and Sky Sports social channels.
