Officials correct not to give Amad penalty – panel

The Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel has confirmed that the referee and video assistant referee (VAR) were accurate in rejecting a penalty claim for Manchester United’s Amad Diallo during their draw against Bournemouth last month. The decision came after a controversial moment in the 67th minute, where Diallo fell inside the penalty area following a challenge by Bournemouth’s Adrien Truffert. Despite the defender’s two-handed contact, Stuart Attwell, the on-field official, dismissed the appeal, allowing the home team to break the deadlock shortly after.

Truffert’s tackle was reviewed by Craig Pawson, the VAR, who found no clear or obvious mistake. The KMI Panel’s verdict split 3:2, with some members arguing the contact wasn’t severe enough to merit a spot-kick. A panelist noted that while Truffert’s action posed a risk, it lacked the “impactful” quality required to be classified as a foul. However, two others disagreed, claiming the incident was “non-footballing” and a penalty should have been given.

Manchester United expressed frustration, vowing to formally complain to the Professional Game Match Officials (PGMO). Manager Michael Carrick questioned the consistency of the decisions, citing a similar hold by Alex Jimenez on Matheus Cunha earlier in the match. “It’s baffling,” Carrick said. “So the Cunha one, he gives, the second one on Amad he doesn’t. They’re almost identical—two hands on someone in the box, and they go over and are in control of the ball. It’s a massive moment, and I don’t understand how you can give one and not the other. It’s as obvious as you can get.”

“You should have given a penalty when you gave two like that. How on earth do you not give another one,” added Match of the Day pundit Alan Shearer.

The KMI Panel also upheld the penalty awarded to Bournemouth for a hold on Cunha, voting 5:0 in favor of the decision. Jimenez’s pull on Cunha was deemed a clear foul, though the same players faced a 23rd-minute challenge that the panel unanimously ruled as no foul. Meanwhile, Harry Maguire’s tackle on Evanilson, resulting in a penalty and red card, received a 4:1 endorsement from the panel. Junior Kroupi scored from the spot, leading to a 2-2 draw at the Vitality Stadium.

In a separate incident, the KMI Panel agreed 3:2 that a penalty should have been awarded to Chelsea against Everton in Gameweek 31. James Tarkowski’s arm swing into Wesley Fofana’s chest was judged to be a clear foul, even though the Toffees later led 3-0 in the 85th minute. The panel emphasized that VAR interventions are based on individual incidents, not overall consistency within a game. This approach sparked debates about the fairness of decisions like Amad’s, where similar actions were treated differently.

Other discussions centered on the role of the KMI Panel, highlighting its focus on specific moments rather than comparing them to others in the same match. The panel’s rulings on Amad and Cunha sparked questions about how consistency is maintained in high-stakes scenarios. Fans and analysts remain divided, with some criticizing the lack of uniformity in penalty decisions, while others support the panel’s focus on clear-cut errors.