Professional Refereeing chief Howard Webb has stood by the decision to dismiss Phil Foden during the Manchester derby, explaining that the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system was unable to intervene and issue a caution to Bruno Fernandes for the "petulant" foot‑strike that ignited the fracas. In the heated clash at Old Trafford, Manchester City secured a 1-0 victory, but the match will be remembered as much for the disciplinary drama as for the winning goal. Early in the second half, City forward Phil Foden was brought down by United captain Bruno Fernandes.
In the immediate aftermath, Fernandes appeared to flick his foot at Foden, an action that many observers described as a petty, retaliatory kick. Foden, visibly upset, responded with a forceful kick to Fernandes' upper body. The on‑field referee, Michael Oliver, interpreted the latter as violent conduct and brandished a straight red card, sending the young English star off the pitch.
The incident quickly moved into the VAR suite, where the officials faced a tangled sequence of events. While Oliver was preparing to issue the red card, VAR official Matt Donohue was still examining a separate potential penalty involving Manchester United midfielder Enzo Fernández and Anderlecht striker Youri Tielemans.
During that review, Donohue can be heard asking, "Who has been sent off and for what?" This moment of confusion highlighted how the VAR team was juggling multiple issues simultaneously. After the penalty question was resolved, the VAR assistants drew Donohue's attention to Fernandes' earlier foot‑strike on Foden.
The conversation that followed was a back‑and‑forth about whether the touch constituted a foul, a possible kick‑out, or violent conduct. The assistant VAR suggested there might have been a "kick‑out" and asked the referee to confirm whether the contact was deliberate. Oliver responded that he had seen a kick into Fernandes' body and that the foul was committed by Fernandes on Foden, but he also noted that the two players were tangled and that Foden's subsequent kick appeared to be a reaction.
The VAR team ultimately concluded that the red card for Foden was justified, describing the incident as a clear case of violent conduct because the kick was delivered with force to the opponent's midriff using both feet. They confirmed the decision, stating, "Red card, happy to confirm." At the same time, they assessed Fernandes' earlier action as "petulant" rather than violent.
According to Webb, a petulant kick lacks the excessive force required for a red card and would normally merit only a yellow card. However, VAR is not empowered to issue a caution after the referee has already administered a red card for a separate offence.
"If all of it was missed and nothing was given against Foden, then VAR could step in and see Foden's actions for a possible red card and capture Fernandes' yellow card action," Webb explained. "Because the referee gave the red card, that option is not open for VAR." Webb also pointed out that similar incidents have been punished in the past, such as the dismissal of Aston Villa's João Gomes for a comparable kick. He emphasized that the on‑field decision is final when the referee has already taken action, and that VAR's role is limited to correcting clear and obvious errors, not re‑refereeing subjective judgments. "When you look at the footage, there is the petulant kick from Fernandes into the backside of Foden.
It is more petulant than violent. To be violent conduct, it has to have excessive force or brutality," Webb said.
"When you look at that at full speed, it does not have that element. It would be a yellow card and VAR cannot step in to give a yellow." Sky Sports analyst Laura Hunter offered a critical perspective on the whole process.
She argued that the VAR room failed to properly scrutinise the trigger for Foden's retaliation. "The review of this incident is all over the place," Hunter wrote, noting that Donohue was distracted by the earlier penalty review and only later highlighted a "possible kick out" by Foden. She suggested that Oliver's rapid decision to send off Foden indicated confidence, which in turn limited VAR's willingness to intervene.
Hunter also highlighted the broader policy shift that raises the threshold for VAR intervention in subjective matters, aiming to avoid endless re‑refereeing. "The bar for intervention by VAR has been deliberately lifted higher for subjective decisions, remember, to avoid re‑refereeing of games," she explained. Nevertheless, Hunter questioned why the VAR team did not give equal treatment to both players. She pointed out that Fernandes' initial kick was arguably the first offence and that Foden's response was a retaliation.
"The decision not to punish Fernandes for the exact same action Foden is red‑carded for is surely a huge oversight. Both deserved equal treatment in my opinion," she asserted. She concluded that VAR's primary function is to alert the referee to missed incidents, and that the pitch‑side monitor exists precisely for that purpose. The incident sparked a broader debate about the consistency of disciplinary actions in high‑stakes matches.
Critics argue that the current system creates a disparity where a player who commits a less aggressive but still questionable act escapes sanction, while a retaliatory response receives the harshest penalty. Supporters of the existing framework contend that the referee's immediate judgment, backed by VAR confirmation, preserves the flow of the game and prevents endless video reviews.
In summary, Howard Webb defended the red card given to Phil Foden as appropriate for violent conduct, while acknowledging that Bruno Fernandes' earlier foot‑strike was petty rather than brutal and therefore merited only a caution—a caution that VAR could not impose after the red card had already been issued. The episode underscores the challenges VAR faces when multiple incidents occur in rapid succession and highlights ongoing discussions about how to balance fairness, consistency, and the preservation of the game's rhythm.