Sky Sports' referee expert gives his opinion on the controversial calls made during the Super Sunday match between the two teams.
Gabriel Jesus and Thiago Alcantara compete for the ball after Granit Xhaka crosses the ball into the box. Michael Oliver gave the penalty after the player went down under the challenge. VAR does not change the decision.
If you want a more accessible video player, please use the chrome browser.
The verdict was incorrect.
I think it raises a couple of questions. It is not in line with what has changed. There is more physical contact with the league raising the threshold. Thiago did not get the ball and made contact with Jesus. Is it enough to make a difference? I don't believe that.
Michael Oliver will tell the VAR that he doesn't get the ball because he made contact with the player. There is no evidence that he made an incorrect decision. The referee will make the decision.
Gabriel Martinelli caught Trent Alexander-Arnold on the ankle after crossing the ball into the box. The defender is taken out of the game at half time due to an injury. Oliver and the VAR decided not to penalize Martinelli.
The decision was correct, according to De Reverend's verdict.
He said that it was checked because he heard them check it. It was unfortunate that Martinelli crossed the ball. Football has physical contact that you don't expect. There was an accident.
The Uruguayan was standing in an ineligible position for Alexander-Arnold's long ball forward at the start of the move that led to the score. Nunez doesn't go for the ball and Gabriel touches the ball into the path of Diaz, who crosses to the Spaniard for the goal. Oliver and the VAR say that the man is not in an obvious position.
If you want a more accessible video player, please use the chrome browser.
The decision was correct, according to DERM OT's verdict.
According to demot, Nunez doesn't try to get the ball and doesn't impact play because it goes through to Luis Diaz, who crosses and Nunez scores. He was in an onside position when Gabriel touched the ball, so he was able to continue playing. One of the nuances of the law is that.
The ball struck Gabriel's arm as Diogo Jota crossed into the box. Oliver and the linesman on the side decided against giving a penalty and the VAR agreed.
If you want a more accessible video player, please use the chrome browser.
The verdict was incorrect.
The referee and VAR thought it was too close. This season we've seen that if the arm is out, then it's been punished. I was expecting it to be overturned when I saw it.
It wasn't given because they thought it was too close. The VAR was expected to recommend a review. The VAR wouldn't recommend it because it was too close. The referee cannot see the screen if he doesn't do that.
The ball was headed onto Dan Burn's arm by the player with the player not looking at the ball. The referee is told to look at the monitor by the VAR.
If you want a more accessible video player, please use the chrome browser.
Demetre's verdict was correct.
The Gabriel one wasn't given to me. I didn't think this was a surprise. I expected it to be given when I saw it the minute I viewed it. I was surprised that they were not treated the same.
If the arm is above shoulder height, then it will be punished. I didn't think for a second that it wouldn't be punished.
The Italian was accused of touching the ball with his arm twice in the same move after he scored for West ham. The VAR found that Scamacca had not committed an offence.
The time taken is two minutes and 40 seconds.
The first and second ones are not the same.
I think it touches his hand because he studied it and studied it. He looked at it for a while. He was not sure if it hit the hand. He cannot give it if he is not convinced.
The way the ball goes down touches his hand. It was hard for the VAR to make a decision. He didn't think about throwing it away. No one can criticize the VAR for being careful.
The first one is more questionable because it strikes the hand when the ball is in the air.
If you want a more accessible video player, please use the chrome browser.
Michail Antonio scored West ham's third goal but is accused of handling the ball in the build-up. The Hammers forward appeared to control the ball with his hand, but it was not picked up by the officials and Antonio finished the move with a goal.
The VAR can't rule out the goal, but it is obvious that the ball was handled.
It goes on despite the fact that it doesn't materialise in a goal because the players touched the ball and the play was reset.
If it strikes his hand, it needs to go directly to a player or his colleague to be punished. It goes to the same person. If it was picked up on the play, then it's a foul, but the VAR said it wasn't intentional, so he can't penalize it.
If you want a more accessible video player, please use the chrome browser.
MarcusRashford scores what looks like a third goal for Manchester United, but is punished for controlling the ball with his hand after James Tarkowski came in to challenge him. The goal was ruled out for obstruction.
The decision was correct, according to De Reverend's verdict.
He's the only one involved in the move. The score doesn't go to any other player. You can argue that he has to go on and score, but there is no one else involved. It's not important that a player plays it onto him. If it strikes his hand or arm, it's a decision. It strikes his arm.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
