Professional refereeing chief Howard Webb explained that the two penalty decisions that went against Manchester United at Bournemouth were largely influenced by the differing speeds of the attackers involved. In the March Premier League fixture on the south coast, United took the lead twice – first through a Bruno Fernandes spot‑kick and later via an own‑goal by James Hill – before Bournemouth equalised through a Ryan Christie strike and a late penalty converted by Eli Junior Kroupi, turning the game into a dramatic 2‑2 draw.
Fernandes earned his penalty after Alex Jimenez pulled on Matheus Cunha inside the box, prompting the referee to point to the spot. Later, United winger Amad Diallo went down under the challenge of Adrien Truffert, but both the on‑field referee and the VAR dismissed his appeal, judging that the contact was insufficient for a penalty. The decision came just moments before Bournemouth’s equaliser, adding to United’s frustration.
The controversy deepened when centre‑back Harry Maguire was shown a straight red card for denying a clear goal‑scoring opportunity. Maguire’s attempt to pull Evanilson off the ball was deemed a cynical foul, and the referee awarded a penalty which Kroupi calmly slotted home.
The incident sparked a heated debate about consistency in penalty rulings. Match officials’ microphones captured assistant referee Constantine Hatzidakis admitting he missed the Diallo incident because he was looking at the line, while referee Stuart Attwell believed the winger was “waiting for the contact.” VAR official Craig Pawson later clarified that the contact on Diallo was “not sufficient for how he goes down,” but he identified Maguire’s pull as a clear‑cut foul. Webb elaborated on the decision‑making process, stating: “Both situations involved pushing actions, but the main difference lies in the speed at which the attackers were moving.” He noted that Diallo was not sprinting, describing his movement as relatively slow, which meant the contact, although present, did not have a significant impact.
In contrast, Evanilson was running at a much higher pace when Maguire intervened, making the foul far more obvious and deserving of a penalty. According to Webb, the on‑field calls were upheld by VAR because they fell within the referee’s discretion. He added that if the referee had not awarded the penalty on the Maguire incident, VAR would almost certainly have intervened, as the foul was “clearly and obviously a penalty.” United’s players expressed their displeasure. Bruno Fernandes was incensed that only one penalty was given for what he considered a similar situation, while manager Michael Carrick called the outcome “crazy” and “baffling,” insisting that both infringements warranted a spot‑kick.
Carrick argued that the two incidents – a two‑handed grab on Diallo and a high‑speed pull on Evanilson – were fundamentally alike in terms of illegal contact, and that the inconsistency altered the match’s complexion. Webb further explained the VAR’s role, emphasizing that officials must judge the impact of contact, especially in the penalty area where challenges are frequent. He said: “The referee deemed the contact on Diallo insufficient to award a penalty. The VAR’s job is not to be overly intrusive but to step in only when there is a clear and obvious error.” He described the Diallo incident as a “grey area,” noting that the Key Match Incident panel was split but ultimately supported the on‑field decision, deeming it a subjective call rather than a definite penalty.
Carrick’s post‑match interview highlighted his frustration: “We should have had another penalty. If you award one, you should award the other.
It’s basically the same two‑handed grab. To give one and not the other is something I can’t wrap my head around – it’s crazy and baffling.
That decision changed the game; we could have won.” The debate over consistency in penalty decisions underscores a broader issue within modern football: the balance between allowing the referee’s judgment and the use of technology to correct clear mistakes. While VAR aims to reduce glaring errors, its reliance on subjective interpretation of contact speed and impact can still lead to controversy, as seen in this Bournemouth‑Manchester United clash. In summary, Howard Webb’s explanation centres on the principle that the velocity of an attacker influences the perceived severity of a foul. A slow‑moving player being tugged may not merit a penalty, whereas a fast‑moving striker stopped abruptly is more likely to be penalised.
This nuanced approach, however, leaves room for differing opinions among fans, players, and managers, especially when the outcomes directly affect the result of a tightly contested Premier League encounter.