Премьер лигийн өнгөрсөн тойрогт гарсан маргаантай шийдвэрүүдийн талаар Премьер лигийн шүүгч асан Грэм Скотт тайлбар өглөө.
Манчестер Юнайтед болон Ипсвич багуудын тоглолтод Гарри Магуайрын оруулсан гоолтой холбоотой гар бөмбөгдсөн эсэх асуудал шүүмжлэл дагууллаа. Грэм Скотт тайлбарлахдаа, Магуайрын гар байрлал нь дүрэм зөрчөөгүй бөгөөд бөмбөгний ойр зайг харгалзан үзэхэд шүүгчийн шийдвэр дүрэмд нийцсэн гэв. Мөн Ипсвичийн хамгаалагч Жейкоб Гривс Матеус Куньяд гаргасан алдааныхаа төлөө торгуулийн талбай дотор байсан тул зөвхөн шар хуудас авсан нь дүрэм ёсоор зөв үйлдэл байсан гэдгийг тодотголоо.
Ливерпүүл болон Ноттингем Форест багуудын тоглолтод гарсан аут хаях үеийн маргаантай нөхцөл байдалд VAR хөндлөнгөөс оролцох боломжгүй байдаг. Премьер лигийн VAR-ын протоколын дагуу тоглолтыг эхлүүлэх үеийн алдаанууд нь “тоглолтын үр дүнд шууд нөлөөлөх” хүчин зүйлд хамаардаггүй тул талбайн шүүгчид шийдвэрээ гаргах ёстой.
Тоттенхэм болон Ньюкасл Юнайтедын тоглолтод Омар Мармуш торгуулийн цохилт авах ёстой байсан эсэх нь тодорхойгүй хэвээр байна. Ийм төрлийн хоёр тоглогч зэрэг бөмбөг рүү тэмүүлсэн тохиолдолд шүүгчийн шийдвэр тогтворгүй байгаа нь лигийн хэмжээнд нэгдсэн ойлголт дутагдалтай байгааг харуулж байна.
Сүүлийн хоёр улирлын туршид Премьер лигийн VAR-ын шүүгчдэд зөвхөн зайлшгүй шаардлагатай тохиолдолд л хөндлөнгөөс оролцох заавар өгсөн байна. Энэ нь видео шүүгчдийн хэтэрхий нарийн нягтлах үйл явцыг багасгаж, тоглолтын урсгалыг хадгалах зорилготой боловч талбайн шүүгчид шийдвэр гаргахад илүү хариуцлагатай хандах шаардлагатайг харуулж байна.
Дэлгэрэнгүйг эх сурвалжаас харах
↓Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
It was a weekend of controversial calls in the Premier League.
A dubious goal for Manchester United against Ipswich, a debatable penalty against Liverpool and a strong claim by Tottenham for a spot-kick against Newcastle… all were potentially match-changing decisions which raised problems for the referees.
They also dominated this week’s mailbag for ex-Premier League official Graham Scott. Here, he answers a selection of your questions.
And if yours wasn’t picked this week, don’t worry: he will be answering queries on Tuesdays throughout the league campaign.
Graham D: How can a player gain an advantage from a blatant handball, but a deflection makes it OK? Allowing Harry Maguire’s goal to stand makes the rule look stupid.
Scott: This decision throws up a multitude of issues for the officials and the game. As it’s written and interpreted, the handball law was not contravened by Maguire. There is an Ipswich player immediately in front of him who kicks the ball, and proximity is a mitigation unless his arms are in an unjustifiable position.
They aren’t. Maguire is allowed to protect himself by raising his hands, and the camera behind that goal shows his arms are in line with his body. In law, the fact that he gains an advantage is irrelevant, however much you may wish this were not so.
That said, I accept readily that referees often penalise players in such circumstances for precisely that reason. We do so because we like a quiet life, which may not be a good motive, but is what happens. I bet Sunday’s referee Craig Pawson wishes he had just blown immediately, as we would not now be discussing the outcome.
A law disallowing all goals if the scorer or the player responsible for the assist handled — even completely inadvertently — was in place for two seasons, from 2019 to 2021. It was detested so much that FIFA and its law-making body IFAB bowed to pressure and changed it so only the actual scorer was penalised for accidentally handling, and even then the ball must strike their arm immediately beforehand.
Maguire takes two touches and is not closed down because Ipswich defenders prioritise appealing to the referee, which is their choice. Whether he scores ‘immediately’ is debatable, but I guess the goal would probably have been ruled out had the ball gone straight in without Jacob Greaves’ deflection.
We can go back to the 2021 law if that’s what people in the game want, but it was deeply unpopular. I’d give it a miss and accept the occasional situations as we saw at Old Trafford.
Footnote: Manchester United were involved in four officiating errors that affected the outcome of their matches last season. Two went for them, two against. It’s early days…
Anonymous: I thought Ipswich defender Jacob Greaves should have been sent off for fouling Matheus Cunha, as he denied an obvious goalscoring opportunity.
Scott: This was the correct call because the offence was inside the area. Had the foul been outside, it would have been a red card and a free kick. The rationale is that the penalty reinstates the obvious goalscoring opportunity, so a yellow card is sufficient punishment.
Gary O: In the Liverpool vs Nottingham Forest game, there appeared to be a foul throw by Liam Delap. Can the VAR intervene in such cases if the offence is missed on field?
Scott: This is not as clear-cut as it should be. The 2017 VAR protocol was explicit, stating: “An incorrectly taken restart (e.g. ball moving at a free kick, foul throw-in etc) which ultimately leads to a goal or penalty incident cannot be reviewed as this is not a ‘match-changing’ decision and it should be detected by the match officials.”
That sentence has since been removed, but in practice is still generally applied.
However, let’s say Delap rolled the ball into play, underarm, and for whatever reason the on-field officials all missed it. Every VAR would intervene if a goal or penalty resulted.
Greater clarity would be helpful, as there will be a situation where an obvious foul throw is missed and a team benefits. The pictures at Anfield are inconclusive but it looked like Delap’s foot was still in contact with the ground at the point of release, which is all that matters.
The danger is that we end up with forensic checks on whether the ball was in the quadrant at a corner on the far side of the field, or whether a gust of wind had caused the ball to roll just before a free kick was taken, and none of us wants that.
Whether it was a penalty at Anfield is a whole other debate that I covered on the day.
Ryan C: Should Omar Marmoush have had a penalty for Tottenham against Newcastle United?
Scott: I have no idea! This is an area of baffling inconsistency that starts with an extremely difficult decision to judge in real time, a lack of clear guidance to VARs and an independent panel that blows in the wind in relation to this kind of challenge.
For those who missed it, the ball was in the air and both Omar Marmoush and Malick Thiaw tried to kick it at the same time. The Tottenham player got there first, and Thiaw only made contact with his opponent.
Sounds like a penalty, right?
Yet some are given, others are not. Very few prompt a VAR intervention as the referee’s call is generally supported. And the independent panel that has five days to come up with a verdict produces a variety of votes that make little sense.
There were 14 penalty appeals last season that bore at least some similarity to this challenge, with two players converging and both trying to play the ball.
Three resulted in spot kicks and were supported by the five-person panel, although one by a margin of 3-2. Two others should have been given, but the members were split 3-2 on one of these, too. If you saw the clips and matched them with the outcomes, you would not be able to tell what the rule is or how it is applied.
The game needs to decide what it wants and stick to it. I’d prefer none were given, as the ball is in no one’s possession and both players are making honest attempts to play it. One will almost always get there first, but that does not mean the other has committed a foul.
Benjamin H: There seems to be a greater allowance for ‘referee’s call’ than previously. VARs will not overrule the ref regardless of the decision because the margins are so fine. Is this a deliberate adjustment?
Scott: Yes, for the past two seasons VARs have been told only to intervene if they have no choice. The bar is set high at the request of the Premier League, which felt that video referees were becoming too forensic and causing unnecessary delays pondering decisions that would divide opinion whatever the outcome.
Manhattan G: It is quite noticeable that on-field referees have been making fewer calls in recent years, hoping that the VAR will bail them out. But with the bar for VAR intervention considerably higher in recent seasons, will that mean we will now see more blatant fouls, handballs, etc stand uncorrected?
Scott: Your anecdotal sense is widely shared, so I thought it would be interesting to examine the data. The evidence is mixed and far from definitive, but you have a point (to a point).
If we take straight red cards for bad tackles as an example, only two players were sent off by an on-field referee last season: Cristian Romero for Tottenham at Manchester United, and Tomas Soucek for West Ham against Spurs.
That number should have been 12, which leans into your suggestion that refs are shying away from making the big calls. In each of the previous three seasons, seven players were shown red by the on-field referee, although it should be noted that a third of those dismissals were considered too harsh.
Professional pride and financial bonuses linked to accuracy provide ample incentive for referees to get decisions right first time, so I do not think any are consciously thinking their initial call does not matter because VAR will bail them out, as you put it.
Nonetheless, on-field accuracy in relation to serious foul play dropped from 85 per cent in 2024-25 to 79 per cent last season, which is cause for concern.
In relation to handball, referees have an outstanding record, getting 94 per cent right on first viewing in 2025-26. Post-VAR, there were only four errors out of 331 handball decisions.
Overall, penalties are called correctly around 89 per cent of the time, a figure that has varied little in recent years.
