This article was first published today in our bespoke Sports newsletter The Fixture. You can sign up in seconds to receive it straight to your inbox every weekday here.
There are times when you watch a potential penalty decision in real time and you conclude unequivocally that it is going to be given.
Such was The Fixture's reaction during the closing stages of Manchester United v Wolves last night when Andre Onana, United's new £50m goalkeeper came out for a cross which he subsequently missed before clattering into the visiting striker Sasa Kaladzic – with two arms flailing – felling the Austrian in the process. Somewhat unbelievably Simon Hooper, the match referee, remained impassive awaiting a call in his headset to go to the pitchside monitor for a review of the incident which never came. When he did make his way to the sideline it was to book Gary O'Neil, the Wolves manager, for his protestations.
"Jon Moss said it was a blatant penalty and should have been given – fair play to him, he apologised," O'Neil said after the game. "But fair play to Jon for coming out and saying it was a clear and obvious error – he couldn't believe the on-field referee didn't give it and can't believe VAR [video assistant referee] didn't intervene.”
O'Neil was not the only one who was angry about the decision in the aftermath of witnessing it.
“Don’t pull the wool over the eyes of those that saw it. This was an obvious foul. Ref should have pointed to the mark. VAR wrong also,” wrote Keith Hackett, the former FIFA referee, on X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter. Hackett is a longstanding critic of the PGMOL, the organisation which governs match officials in England.
At times such as these it is always instructive to seek out the thoughts of Dale Johnson, the editor at ESPNFC. Johnson has immersed himself in the law changes that have infiltrated football in recent seasons. He often outlines both VAR's impact on creating confusions and the issues the changes have thrown up for the modern referee. Johnson regularly finds himself the subject of abuse from supporters of a 'wronged' club when his modus operandi is merely to point out what the interpretation of the law is and how it has been applied.
His take on the 'missed penalty decision' spelled out the reasons why it should have been awarded.
“When a check begins, the referee will describe the incident,” wrote earlier today. “So, if Hooper says that he felt the goalkeeper didn't quite get there and it was a coming together, there's a base for the VAR to begin with. It's then about recognising that description is no more than a loose fit. There has been a coming together, of sorts, but the way that Onana goes into his opponent clearly should be judged as a foul and a penalty kick.”
Alas, VAR continues to be hampered by the ineptitude of those dispensing it in England's Premier League. Michael Salisbury, the man in the booth for the game at Old Trafford last night, was the same official in the hot seat when Brighton had a penalty turned down for a foul on Karou Mitoma against Tottenham last season. Salisbury missed four other highly contentious decisions that day and was dropped for the following week's action – and rightly so. The question is at what point is there a judgment made that an individual is not fit for purpose?
Salisbury also missed two penalties in a match between West Ham and Fulham last season. Should he continue to be employed for VAR duties it feeds a narrative that certain clubs are being more favoured than others in English football's top flight. It also cast doubts on the legitimacy of the entire officiating system – the very thing VAR was brought in to remove.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel