Idrissa Gueye pink card: Why Everton midfielder was despatched off for slapping teammate Michael Keane – Match Officers Mic’d Up

PGMO chief Howard Webb felt Idrissa Gueye left referee Tony Harrington with “very little choice” however to ship him off for slapping team-mate Michael Keane throughout Everton’s win at Man Utd earlier this season.

Gueye noticed pink when the 2 got here collectively following a heated dialogue on the finish of a Man Utd assault, with Gueye clearly elevating his hand to his Toffees colleague.

Everton went on to win the sport 1-0 regardless of the early dismissal, and boss David Moyes mentioned after the sport he felt Harrington rushed his determination. He later revealed a membership enchantment towards the choice had been turned down however mentioned he had been given “no reason” by the PGMO.

Replaying the audio of the incident and subsequent VAR assessment on the most recent version of Mic’d Up on Sky Sports activities revealed VAR official Paul Howard had considered the contact as a “clear strike to the face” and confirmed Harrington’s on-field determination.

WHAT THE OFFICIALS SAID:

Referee: “Red card on-field for a slap by [Gueye].”

VAR: “Checking the on-field decision of red card for [Gueye]… There’s an action by [Gueye]. I also want to check the action of Michael Keane here before that, please.”

Assistant VAR: “Okay yeah, I’ve seen a slap.”

VAR: “Confirming the on-field decision of red card. [Gueye] clear strike to the face of Michael Keane.”

WEBB’S VERDICT:

Idrissa Gueye was despatched off for violent conduct, which comes beneath Legislation 12. Based on Legislation 12, a participant have to be despatched off in the event that they use extreme pressure or brutality towards an opponent, a teammate, a workforce official or a match official. So, it goes on to incorporate teammates and it is uncommon, we have not seen many of those conditions occur earlier than.

However when the referee on this case sees Gueye clearly slap Keane, his teammate, throughout the face, he is received little or no alternative however to behave as per the Legal guidelines of the Recreation.

I am certain the referee on this scenario felt that he was put in a reasonably troublesome place – we wish referees to make use of their persona – we used to all the time say Legislation 18 was frequent sense, the subsequent legislation after the primary 17, however we have additionally received to use the Legal guidelines as effectively.

When it is so clear that an act of violent conduct has occurred, to the face, and it is stipulated within the Legal guidelines of the Recreation that it needs to be a pink card, I do not assume you are able to do something apart from ship the participant off and the referee, on this case Tony Harrington, did the correct factor.

Ought to Georginio Rutter’s equaliser vs West Ham have stood?

Georgino Rutter’s late equaliser in Brighton’s 1-1 draw at house to West Ham was checked by the VAR for 2 potential points – a excessive foot and handball.

Charalampos Kostoulas’ proper boot virtually connects with the pinnacle of West Ham defender Konstantinos Mavropanos as he performs an overhead kick earlier than Rutter controls the ball with the assistance of his proper arm.

Rutters’ preliminary shot is saved after which he’s teed up by Jan Paul van Hecke to attain.

WHAT THE OFFICIALS SAID:

VAR: “Possible high foot, possible handball.”

Referee: “No. Goal.”

Referee, talking to West Ham captain Jarrod Bowen: “There’s an accidental handball for me in the potential build-up, but it’s not a deliberate handball. It’s an accidental handball, so wait there.

“The bicycle kick’s by no means a foul for me. If it has hit his proper hand, it is an unintended handball, his palms are down there, for me. However they will take a look at it, alright?”

VAR: “It isn’t fast [before the goal]. So we have to evaluate now provided that that may be a deliberate handball or not.”

Assistant VAR: “I do not assume it is a deliberate handball. The ball strikes the thigh, bounces up, the arm is in a pure place. Van Hecke then performs the ball again to him so it is not fast – so I would be comfortable to award.”

VAR: “It is a non-deliberate handball. There could also be an unintended handball within the build-up, but it surely’s not deliberate.”

VAR, speaking to referee: “Okay Simon [Hooper], confirming the on-field determination of aim. There’s an unintended handball by 10, but it surely’s not instantly previous to the aim. It comes off the thigh and touches the arm. So affirm the on-field determination of aim.”

WEBB’S VERDICT:

This is quite an unusual situation because the player who eventually scores a goal, in this case Georginio Rutter, actually made contact with the ball with his hand in the attacking phase before the goal.

But what’s important is that he didn’t immediately score after that contact. For some years now, you haven’t been able to score a goal immediately after the ball hitting your hand or arm.

The ball hits Rutter’s hand, but it’s considered an accidental handball by the officials, he then shoots, Areola makes a good save, palms it out towards Van Hecke who actually then passes it back to Rutter to score.

It’s not an immediate goal, there’s a nice controlled pass by Van Hecke back to Rutter and that resets the situation and therefore the goal is allowed to stand as long as the officials consider this to be an accidental handball, not a deliberate handball and they do in this situation.

“The whole lot about what he does is fairly pure. He is setting himself for that ball coming in, it goes onto his thigh first, and the arm by no means actually strikes. It is nonetheless in the identical place, it is fairly low and pure and that’s deemed a non-deliberate handball and, subsequently, the one time you would penalise him is that if he scored instantly, which he did not.

“So, I’m in agreement there with the officials, this isn’t a handball offence that you’d normally penalise. For example, if that was a defender in the penalty area, you wouldn’t give a penalty against them so I’m ok with it being deemed an accidental handball.”

On the excessive foot: “I think what we see is Kostoulas making really good contact on the ball with that athletic overhead kick, and there’s hardly any contact on the opponent in this case.

“The referee noticed that in actual time, we heard him point out it, and mentioned it was good contact on the ball, the VAR checked out it as effectively and deemed it to be precisely that, a great taking part in of the ball with out actually a lot contact and if that will’ve gone prime nook I feel most individuals would’ve needed it to face.”

Why VAR intervened for Leeds’ penalty vs Liverpool…

Referee Anthony Taylor initially dismissed Leeds’ penalty enchantment for Ibrahim Konate’s sort out on Wilfried Gnoto, however the VAR intervened and instructed him to assessment the choice. Here is why…

Mateta advantages from legislation change…

Crystal Palace striker Jean-Philippe Mateta grew to become the primary participant to profit from a change within the legislation concerning unintended double touches when taking a penalty towards Manchester United.

Watch Match Officers Mic’d Up on Sky Sports activities Premier League at 8pm on Tuesday.