VAR analysis: What led to Bournemouth receiving a penalty while Manchester United did not?

The video assistant referee generates debate each week in the Premier League, but what is the decision-making process and are the outcomes accurate?

This season, we will analyze significant incidents to clarify and outline the procedures regarding VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee with over 12 seasons on the elite list, officiating in both the Premier League and Championship. With a wealth of experience at the top level, he has worked within the VAR framework in the Premier League and provides valuable insights into the processes, reasoning, and protocols implemented on a Premier League matchday.

Bournemouth 2-2 Manchester United

Referee: Stuart Attwell
VAR: Craig Pawson
Time: 67 minutes
Incident: Potential penalty for Manchester United

What occurred: At the 67-minute mark, Bournemouth defender Adrien Truffert made upper body contact with Manchester United forward Amad Diallo, causing the United player to fall, alleging he was pulled by Truffert. The situation became more contentious as Bournemouth netted their equalizer immediately after the referee Stuart Attwell dismissed the penalty claims. VAR reviewed the decision and confirmed it as a correct on-field ruling.

VAR decision: The referee’s ruling of no penalty for Truffert’s challenge was examined and validated by VAR, which concluded that the contact did not constitute a foul.

VAR review: Since Bournemouth scored right after the penalty appeal from United, VAR’s check required the formality of an official review rather than a background check, which would have been applicable had the goal not been scored.

By the time the ball reached the back of United’s net, VAR Pawson would have already initiated his preliminary checks on the Truffert challenge and would likely have been satisfied with Attwell’s on-field decision of no penalty. However, with a Bournemouth goal to assess, the process would restart, and the entire sequence of play would be reviewed. Pawson confirmed that the contact by the Bournemouth defender did not meet the criteria for a foul and upheld the on-field decision of no penalty as accurate.

Verdict / Insight: Referee Attwell regarded Truffert’s arm as normal contact, considering the dynamics of both players moving across the area in a relatively neutral position within the penalty area, and I concur.

In real-time, I felt that Amad, upon feeling the contact, went to ground unnecessarily, attempting to win a penalty rather than it being a foul by the Bournemouth defender. The reactions of his teammates also indicated that it was a poor choice by Amad to go down, and it did not warrant a penalty kick.

Premier League

Time: 78 minutes
Incident: Penalty awarded to Bournemouth and Harry Maguire sent off for denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO)

What occurred: Referee Attwell further exasperated Manchester United when he awarded a penalty, penalizing Harry Maguire for appearing to hold Bournemouth’s Evanilson, bringing him down as he had a clear chance to score. Attwell also classified the foul as a DOGSO offense, resulting in Maguire’s dismissal.

VAR decision: The referee’s decision to award a penalty and issue a red card to Maguire for DOGSO was reviewed and confirmed by VAR, which determined it was a holding offense with no attempt to contest the ball.

VAR review: Reviewing the replays for the Evanilson penalty and Maguire’s red card was a straightforward process for Pawson. It is important to note that the on-field decision will always be upheld unless there is clear video evidence indicating an error by the refereeing team.

Referee Attwell’s communication characterized Maguire’s actions as a clear holding offense, with no attempt to play the ball, effectively preventing an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. The replay review did not reveal anything contrary, with both the penalty and subsequent red card deemed correct by Pawson. He verified and approved both outcomes.

Verdict / Insight: The decision to grant Evanilson a penalty and issue a red card to Maguire has certainly sparked discussion, with some questioning the extent of contact made by Maguire and whether it influenced the attacker’s ability to remain on his feet and shoot at goal.

When analyzing Maguire’s actions in detail, it is challenging to contest the penalty, as it was a clear and intentional act to impede and potentially stop his opponent from scoring, while making no attempt to play the ball.

The degree of the hold can be debated; however, the action, evidence of contact, and his intent are evident, so I am satisfied with the decision to award a penalty and a red card in this instance. Furthermore, based on all the evidence from the replays, this is not a decision I would anticipate requiring VAR intervention.