Review requested after refereeing decision went in Arsenal’s favour | OneFootball

Review requested after refereeing decision went in Arsenal’s favour | OneFootball

Icon: Just Arsenal News

Just Arsenal News

·7 December 2021

Review requested after refereeing decision went in Arsenal’s favour

Article image:Review requested after refereeing decision went in Arsenal’s favour

Former Premier League referee Keith Hackett has called for a review of VAR after Everton forward Richarlison’s goal was scrapped against Arsenal on Monday night.

The Brazilian had two disallowed goals in fact, with the first deemed to have been well offside when seeing the lines drawn, but Hackett believes the second decision goes against the latest rule changes.


OneFootball Videos


In the summer, the FA decided that the lines must be drawn larger, giving forwards a slight advantage over close calls, but that didn’t happen for the second goal.

Hackett has now called for the officials that were in charge to be reviewed.

“I was very disappointed to see the Richarlison goal ruled out for a very marginal decision,” Hackett told Goodison News.

“We were promised at the start of the season that broadcast lines to determine offside would be thicker, doing away with the toenail offside calls.

“This clearly did not happen in this game with VAR determining a ‘toe’ was offside.

“These are the type of decisions that chalk off good goals.

“I hope that the PGMOL management review this one and offer the appropriate operational advice to the VAR and AVAR operators.

“Come on, we want to see goals.“

I have to admit, I thought it was onside before the lines were shown, and when we were shown them, it didn’t appear to touch the players foot.

I thought the idea to give more to the striker’s favour was also a way to speed up decisions like these, and if it was too close to call within a certain amount of time, then it was too close to be called.

In the spirit of the game, VAR is wanted to be quick and efficient, and on this occasion I’m not sure it could be considered either.

Do you think it should have been called offside on what you saw?

Patrick

View publisher imprint