Man Utd fury at 'astonishing' and 'baffling' penalty decisions

To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.

This video can not be played

Media caption,

Highlights: Maguire shown red as Manchester United held at Bournemouth

ByGary RoseBBC Sport journalist

Published16 minutes ago
37 Comments

Manchester United were left furious about "astonishing" and "baffling" refereeing decisions as two penalties were awarded and one was not in their thrilling 2-2 draw at Bournemouth.

Harry Maguire's special day - following his England recall - was spoiled by his sending off at Vitality Stadium, but it was the performance of the officials that had United fuming.

Maguire, who will return to the England squad for the first time in almost two years for upcoming friendlies with Uruguay and Japan, was sent off for pulling back Evanilson inside the box as Manchester United led 2-1 with 10 minutes to go.

Junior Kroupi subsequently scored the penalty but the decision not to award Manchester United an earlier spot-kick left interim manager Michael Carrick furious - especially after his side had been awarded a penalty for what he deemed to be a similar challenge earlier in the match.

The penalty the visitors were not given came when Amad Diallo appeared to be pulled back inside the box by Adrien Truffert, with Manchester United leading 1-0 after Bruno Fernandes' penalty.

Carrick, who described the decisions made as "baffling", said: "My first [thought] is he definitely got one of them wrong, because he's given one penalty for the same thing that he's not given one as a two-armed grab.

"So the Matheus Cunha one, he gives, the second one on Amad he doesn't, which is, I think, almost identical, really, two hands on someone in the box, and they go over and they're in control of the ball.

"Massive moment and I don't understand how you can give one and not the other - it's crazy. It's as obvious as you can get.

"It's clear, if that's what he believes is a penalty to start with then the second one has to be. I don't understand how you can't give that. And then the goal and after that it was chaos. It's astonishing."

Manchester United captain Fernandes, meanwhile, felt that if Bournemouth's penalty was given for a foul by Maguire, then so should one for the Diallo incident.

"I think we could have gone 2-0 up, and then we ended up conceding a goal, not getting a penalty and then we get a penalty against, where more or less it's the same situation as Amad," he said.

"One is awarded as a penalty, the other one not. I know it's difficult for the referee to give two penalties in the same game for the same team but what I don't understand is why VAR doesn't get involved in that situation."

What exactly happened?

To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.

This video can not be played

Media caption,

'I don't understand how you can give one and not the other' - Carrick on penalty decisions

After a goalless first half, the game sparked into life when Manchester United were awarded a penalty after Alex Jimenez needlessly tugged back Matheus Cunha inside the box.

Fernandes stepped up to send the goalkeeper the wrong way and give the visitors the lead.

They key talking points came soon after, as first Diallo went down inside the box after a pull on his arm by Truffert.

Nothing was given and Bournemouth went up the other end of the pitch and equalised through Ryan Christie.

The Premier League match centre later explained that "the referee's call of no penalty for a challenge by Truffert was checked and confirmed by VAR - with it deemed the contact was not sufficient for a foul".

Manchester United regained the lead when James Hill diverted into his own net from a Bruno Fernandes corner but then came the game's other main talking point.

This time, Maguire pulled back Evanilson inside the box and was shown a straight red card before Kroupi slammed home the penalty.

On that decision, the Premier League match centre said: "The referee's call of penalty and red card for Maguire for the denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity was checked and confirmed by VAR - with it deemed to be a holding offence with no attempt to challenge for the ball."

Former Manchester United striker Andy Cole said on Sky Sports: "When you're talking about going down easily, he's [Evanilson] gone down easily there.

"As a manager, of course you're going to be disappointed, Bruno's [Fernandes] disappointed as well. When you break it down, what is the difference? I get the sending off but when we're talking about the penalty itself, why is one given and one not?"

However, ex-Liverpool midfielder Jamie Redknapp did not feel there was much wrong with either decision.

He said: "I think the difference is he's going to goal and he's denying a goalscoring opportunity and Harry [Maguire] with the momentum is putting his arm out. It's extremely harsh but I can see why he's given that one."

On the decision not to award a penalty for the Diallo incident, Redknapp added: "I think it'd have been really harsh. I think you can see Truffert is being aggressive with him, he does manhandle him a bit. I just don't think it's enough to be a penalty."

The video assistant referee did not intervene on any of the calls, to ask referee Stuart Attwell to review his decisions.

What information do we collect from this quiz?

'The goal is consistency of intervention'

ByDale JohnsonFootball issues correspondent

Manchester United fans will be asking what the difference is between Diallo's penalty claim and the spot-kick awarded to Evanilson.

Why did the VAR not get involved?

The answer is pretty simple. It is the on-field decision.

There is a common misconception that VAR exists to create consistency of decision-making. The goal is consistency of intervention.

Its role is only to fix clear and obvious errors.

Football's laws are highly subjective. In many cases there is no 'right' decision, when incidents are in the grey area where either outcome is supportable.

So it is always possible, as was the case at Vitality Stadium, for two seemingly similar incidents to have opposing outcomes on the field - and yet the VAR will not get involved in either.

It is one reason why supporters struggle get on board with VAR.

In cases like this it gives the perception that it is facilitating inconsistency. Yet this is always how it was intended to work.

What do fans think?

Becky: Inconsistent refereeing really has the power to ruin the game. I don't mind one referee not being great, I can stomach that. But when there is a VAR and they don't make the right call when they have the chance - that's just not OK.

Freddie: We should be talking about a 3-1 win for Manchester United but instead we have to have yet another conversation about the terrible inconsistency in officiating that is costing teams vital points every week.

Ryan: VAR is obviously not working as it should do, there seems to be more mistakes now then before VAR came in. It's time that VAR is scrapped until the referees can learn how to use the system properly.