During Wednesday’s match between Newcastle and Manchester United, controversy arose when the referee chose not to award Newcastle a penalty after an incident involving Sofyan Amrabat and Magpies winger Anthony Gordon. With United leading 1-0, Amrabat appeared to step on Gordon’s heel as he entered the box late in the first half. Despite Gordon’s assertion that it was a “clear penalty”, the decision was reviewed by the Premier League’s Key Match Incident Panel.
In a statement seen by BBC Sport, one of the panellists acknowledged that the defender’s left foot impeded the attacker’s heel, potentially justifying a penalty. However, the majority opinion from the four other panellists supported the non-intervention of the video assistant referee (VAR) in this instance.
Gordon expressed his frustration, stating, “[Amrabat] goes down my Achilles and pushes me in the back. I don’t mind the referee getting it wrong on the pitch, but I don’t understand the point of VAR.” Despite Gordon’s protestations, the decision not to award a penalty stood, and Manchester United went on to secure a 3-2 victory over Newcastle.
This incident highlights the ongoing debate surrounding VAR in football and the subjectivity involved in interpreting potential fouls and penalties. While some may argue that the contact warranted a penalty, others believe that the decision not to intervene was the correct one. As discussions around VAR and its impact on the game continue, moments like these serve as reminders of the complexities and controversies that can arise in the world of football officiating.
