The Professional Game Match Officials (PGMO) chief refereeing officer, Howard Webb, explained that the penalty decisions that went against Manchester United during their encounter with Bournemouth were largely influenced by the differing "speed the attackers were moving at" at the moments of contact. Manchester United appeared to have the upper hand twice in the March match on the south coast, first through a goal from Bruno Fernandes and later via an own‑goal credited to James Hill.
However, Bournemouth’s Ryan Christie and a late spot‑kick taken by Eli Junior Kroupi secured the hosts a point in a game that was packed with contentious incidents. Fernandes converted a penalty after Alex Jiménez appeared to pull Matheus Cunha down in the box. Later, United’s winger Amad Diallo fell under the challenge of Adrien Truffert, prompting an appeal for a penalty. Both the on‑field referee and the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) dismissed the appeal, judging that the contact was insufficient to warrant a spot‑kick.
The decision proved pivotal, as Bournemouth equalised shortly thereafter. The drama escalated when United centre‑back Harry Maguire received a straight red card for denying a clear goal‑scoring opportunity. Maguire had hauled down Evanilson, who was sprinting past him, and in the process committed a foul that resulted in a penalty.
Kroupi stepped up and successfully converted, giving Bournemouth the lead. Match officials were mic‑ed up for the broadcast, revealing that assistant referee Constantine Hatzidakis did not see the Amad incident because he was concentrating on the touchline. Referee Stuart Attwell believed Diallo was "waiting for the contact" rather than being dragged down. VAR official Craig Pawson described the contact on Diallo as "not sufficient for how he goes down," but he clearly identified Maguire’s challenge as "a cynical hold across" the attacker.
Webb elaborated on the rationale behind the differing outcomes: "Both situations involved pushing actions, but there are key differences. Most of the difference sits around the speed the attackers are moving at." He continued, "In Amad's case, he wasn't moving particularly quickly.
There was some contact, but it’s a judgment call on how impactful it is." When discussing the Maguire incident, Webb contrasted the two scenarios: "Evanilson is going past Maguire at a much higher pace than Amad. Maguire desperately pushed him to stop a clear scoring chance. That is a very clear foul." He affirmed that the on‑field decision to award a penalty was upheld by VAR, stating that if the referee had not given the penalty, VAR would have intervened because, in his view, it was "clearly and obviously a penalty." Manchester United’s captain Bruno Fernandes expressed frustration, arguing that the two incidents were essentially identical and should have resulted in two penalties.
Head coach Michael Carrick echoed the sentiment, describing the situation as "crazy" and "baffling" for the lack of consistency. Webb added nuance to the discussion, noting that Truffert’s hand‑on‑Diallo was a risk: "He placed his hands on Amad, who was not moving at great pace, but there was definitely contact.
Players often make contact in and around the penalty area; the referee must judge how impactful that action is." He emphasized that the referee’s call is a crucial component of VAR’s application, urging officials not to be overly intrusive and to intervene only when an error is unmistakably clear. The Key Match Incident (KMI) panel reviewed the Amad incident and concluded that it was a subjective, grey‑area situation. While the panel was split, the majority agreed that the on‑field decision to deny a penalty was justified, reinforcing the notion that not every touch‑down in the box automatically merits a spot‑kick. After the 2‑2 draw, Michael Carrick told Sky Sports: "We should have had another penalty.
Obviously, if you get one, you must get the other. It’s pretty much identical for me – a two‑hand grab. Either way, they got one wrong, but to give one and not the other I can’t get my head around; it’s crazy, it’s baffling.
Because of that, they scored and then chaos ensued. We should have had another penalty and the game would have been totally different." The match highlighted the fine margins that officials must navigate, especially when evaluating the speed and intent of attackers in the penalty area.
While some fans and pundits will continue to debate the consistency of the decisions, Webb’s explanation underscores that speed, impact, and the referee’s interpretation remain central to determining whether a foul merits a penalty. The incident also serves as a reminder of VAR’s role: to support, not replace, the on‑field referee’s judgment, intervening only when the error is clear and obvious.