Connect with us

Sports

Howard Webb Explains VAR Decision in Arsenal-Newcastle Match

Editorial

Published

on

Howard Webb, the chief executive of PGMOL, praised the use of VAR in overturning a penalty decision during the recent match between Arsenal and Newcastle at St James’ Park. The incident involved Newcastle goalkeeper Nick Pope and Arsenal forward Viktor Gyokeres. Initially, referee Jarred Gillett awarded a penalty for Pope’s challenge on Gyokeres, but after a review, the decision was reversed.

In the first half of the match, Pope rushed out to challenge Gyokeres as he approached the ball in the penalty area. Although Gillett initially deemed it a foul, VAR official Darren England recommended that Gillett review the incident. After approximately three minutes of deliberation, Gillett announced that the penalty was not warranted.

Webb explained that the challenge by Pope was fundamentally different from a similar incident involving Chelsea’s Robert Sanchez, who was sent off for a foul in a previous match against Manchester United. Webb emphasized that while both situations involved a goalkeeper making contact with the ball, the nature of their actions differed significantly.

VAR Review Process Explained

The VAR review process revealed that Pope had indeed touched the ball before any contact was made with Gyokeres. Webb described the sequence of events, stating, “At full speed, it looks a penalty, doesn’t it? You can absolutely understand why the referee gave it from what he saw on the field.” He noted that the VAR intervention was crucial in identifying the clear touch on the ball by Pope, which Gillett had not recognized in real time.

Webb elaborated on the decision-making process, saying, “He [the VAR] clearly sees that Gyokeres gets to the ball, pokes it a little bit forward, but then, importantly, Nick Pope also gets a very clear touch on the ball as he steps forward with that right foot.” The VAR concluded that the contact with Gyokeres occurred only after Pope had played the ball, thus justifying the overturning of the penalty.

Despite Webb’s explanation, both Bukayo Saka and Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta expressed their dissatisfaction with the decision after the match. They questioned how the review could be deemed ‘clear and obvious’ when it involved a significant moment in the game.

Comparing the Two Incidents

Webb also addressed the comparison between Pope’s challenge and Sanchez’s foul on Bryan Mbeumo, which led to Sanchez’s red card. He pointed out that while both goalkeepers made contact with the ball, the manner in which they did so was markedly different. Sanchez’s challenge was deemed reckless, as he had raised his leg and made contact with Mbeumo in a way that endangered the player’s safety.

In contrast, Webb characterized Pope’s challenge as a normal playing action, stating, “There’s no contact on the player until the ball has been played away, and then the contact happens fairly normally.” He highlighted that Sanchez’s foul prevented Mbeumo from continuing toward a clear goalscoring opportunity, which justified the red card.

Webb concluded that the VAR’s intervention in the Arsenal-Newcastle match was a demonstration of effective use of technology to correct a potential refereeing error. The decision to overturn the penalty was based on a clear understanding of the sequence of events, reinforcing the importance of accurate officiating in football.

Our Editorial team doesn’t just report the news—we live it. Backed by years of frontline experience, we hunt down the facts, verify them to the letter, and deliver the stories that shape our world. Fueled by integrity and a keen eye for nuance, we tackle politics, culture, and technology with incisive analysis. When the headlines change by the minute, you can count on us to cut through the noise and serve you clarity on a silver platter.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © All rights reserved. This website offers general news and educational content for informational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, we do not guarantee the completeness or reliability of the information provided. The content should not be considered professional advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to verify facts and consult relevant experts when necessary. We are not responsible for any loss or inconvenience resulting from the use of the information on this site.