The Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) recently released the VAR audio from the controversial moment in the match between Manchester United and Tottenham, where a potential handball by a Spurs defender was not called as a penalty. This decision has sparked considerable debate among fans and analysts alike.
In the closing minutes of the match, a Manchester United player’s shot struck the arm of a Tottenham defender. The VAR team reviewed the incident, and the audio release sheds light on their reasoning. Here are the key points:
1. **Interpretation of Handball Rules**: The VAR officials assessed whether the handball met the criteria for a penalty. Under the current rules, a handball is only considered an offense if a player’s arm is in an unnatural position or if they deliberately handle the ball. The officials determined that the defender’s arm was in a natural position relative to their movement and body orientation.
2. **Defender’s Positioning**: The VAR audio indicates that the officials analyzed the defender’s positioning at the moment the ball struck their arm. They concluded that the arm was close to the body and not extended, which influenced their decision.
3. **Angle of the Shot**: The speed and angle of the shot were also considered. The VAR team noted that the defender had limited time to react, suggesting that the handball was not intentional, which is a crucial factor in such decisions.
4. **Referee’s On-field Decision**: The original on-field decision made by the referee also played a significant role. VAR can only intervene if there is a clear and obvious error. In this case, the VAR team felt that the on-field referee’s decision not to award a penalty did not constitute such an error.
5. **Precedent and Consistency**: The audio release discussed the importance of maintaining consistency with similar decisions made in previous matches. The officials aimed to ensure that their ruling aligned with how similar incidents had been handled throughout the season.
The release of this VAR audio is part of PGMOL’s effort to increase transparency in officiating decisions, especially in high-stakes moments that can impact the outcome of matches. While this explanation may clarify the reasoning behind the decision, it has not completely quelled the frustration from fans and pundits who feel the incident warranted a penalty.
