The Professional Game Match Officials (PGMO) chief referee supervisor, Howard Webb, explained that the two penalty decisions that went against Manchester United during their match at Bournemouth were influenced by the differing speeds of the attackers involved. In the March encounter 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 when Alex Jimenez appeared to pull Matheus Cunha, prompting the referee to point to the spot.
Later, United winger Amad Diallo went down in the box after being held by Adrien Truffert, but both the on‑field referee and the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) rejected the appeal, judging the contact insufficient for a penalty. Shortly after, centre‑back Harry Maguire was shown a straight red card for denying a clear goal‑scoring opportunity. He had pulled Evanilson down, conceding a penalty that Kroupi calmly dispatched.
Match officials’ microphones captured the incident involving Diallo. Assistant referee Constantine Hatzidakis admitted he was looking at the line and missed the contact, while referee Stuart Attwell believed Diallo was “waiting for the contact”.
VAR official Craig Pawson described the contact as “not sufficient for how he goes down”, but confirmed that Maguire’s challenge was a “cynical hold across” the attacker. Webb clarified the rationale behind the differing outcomes: “Both situations involved pushing, but the key difference lies in the speed of the attackers. In Amad’s case he was not moving particularly quickly; there was some contact, but the judgment hinges on how impactful that contact was.” He contrasted this with Evanilson’s run, noting that the Brazilian was sprinting past Maguire at a much higher pace, making the foul more obvious.
Webb added that the on‑field decision to award a penalty for Maguire’s challenge was upheld by VAR, and that had the referee not given it, VAR would almost certainly have intervened because, in his view, it was “clearly and obviously a penalty”. Bruno Fernandes expressed fury that only one penalty was awarded for what he described as “the same situation”, while Manchester United manager Michael Carrick labelled the decision “crazy” and “baffling”. Webb further explained Truffert’s involvement: “Truffert placed his hands on Amad, who was not moving at great pace, but there was definitely contact.
Players often collide in the penalty area; the referee must judge how significant that contact is.” He stressed that VAR is meant to be minimally intrusive, stepping in only when a clear and obvious error has occurred. In this instance, the VAR panel deemed the Diallo incident a “subjective call – could be a penalty, but it’s a grey area”, and ultimately supported the referee’s original decision. Carrick, speaking to Sky Sports after the 2‑2 draw, reiterated his frustration: “We should have had another penalty. If you award one, you must award the other.
To me it was an identical two‑hand grab. It’s crazy and baffling that only one was given. That decision changed the game; without it the result would have been very different.” The controversy highlights the challenges officials face in fast‑moving situations inside the box. Speed, momentum, and the degree of contact all factor into whether an infraction merits a penalty.
While VAR provides a safety net, its role is to confirm clear mistakes rather than re‑judge every marginal call. This balance aims to preserve the flow of the game while ensuring fairness, but it inevitably leads to debates when subjective judgments differ between the on‑field officials and the reviewing panel. For fans seeking a deeper look, the “Match Officials Mic’d Up” segment on Sky Sports offers a behind‑the‑scenes audio perspective, showing how referees discuss incidents in real time.
The incident also underscores the importance of assistant referees maintaining a clear view of the penalty area, as missing a key moment can affect the final decision. Overall, the Bournemouth‑Manchester United match will be remembered not only for its exciting finish but also for the nuanced interpretation of the laws of the game regarding speed, contact, and the threshold for awarding penalties. The incident serves as a case study for future referee training, illustrating how subtle differences in an attacker’s momentum can tip the scales between a penalty and a missed call, and how VAR’s guidance seeks to uphold consistency without over‑stepping its intended role.