Idrissa Gueye crimson card: Why Everton midfielder was despatched off for slapping teammate Michael Keane – Match Officials 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 crimson 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 stated after the sport he felt Harrington rushed his resolution. He later revealed a membership attraction in opposition to the choice had been turned down however stated he had been given “no reason” by the FA.

Replaying the audio of the incident and subsequent VAR evaluation on the newest version of Mic’d Up on Sky Sports revealed VAR official Paul Howard had seen the contact as a “clear strike to the face” and confirmed Harrington’s on-field resolution.

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 underneath Law 12. According to Law 12, a participant should be despatched off in the event that they use extreme power or brutality in opposition to an opponent, a teammate, a staff 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.

But 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 Laws of the Game.

I’m certain the referee on this scenario felt that he was put in a reasonably troublesome place – we wish referees to make use of their character – we used to at all times say Law 18 was widespread sense, the subsequent legislation after the primary 17, however we have additionally received to use the Laws as effectively.

When it is so clear that an act of violent conduct has occurred, to the face, and it is stipulated within the Laws of the Game that it must be a crimson card, I do not suppose you are able to do something aside from ship the participant off and the referee, on this case Tony Harrington, did the suitable factor.

Should Georginio Rutter’s equaliser vs West Ham have stood?

Georgino Rutter’s late equaliser in Brighton’s 1-1 draw at dwelling 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 top 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 fingers are down there, for me. But they’re going to take a look at it, alright?”

VAR: “It’s not quick [before the goal]. So we have got to evaluate now provided that that could be a deliberate handball or not.”

Assistant VAR: “I do not suppose 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 isn’t quick – so I’d be comfortable to award.”

VAR: “It’s 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: “Ok Simon [Hooper], confirming the on-field resolution of aim. There is 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 resolution 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.

“Everything about what he does is fairly pure. He’s setting himself for that ball coming in, it goes onto his thigh first, and the arm by no means actually strikes. It’s 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 might 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 stated it was good contact on the ball, the VAR checked out it as effectively and deemed it to be precisely that, enjoying of the ball with out actually a lot contact and if that will’ve gone high 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 attraction for Ibrahim Konate’s sort out on Wilfried Gnoto, however the VAR intervened and instructed him to evaluation the choice. Here’s 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 in opposition to Manchester United.

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