Should Cunha strike have stood in Manchester United thriller? | OneFootball

Once again, a VAR check takes centre stage on an afternoon that some might say it had no right to as Bruno Fernandes matched Kevin de Bruyne and Thierry Henry’s 20 assists in a season and Casemiro said farewell in Manchester United’s 3-2 victory over Nottingham Forest.

But it was different this time. The script typically has it that if a referee is recommended to jog over to the infamous monitor on the side of the pitch, an on-field decision is reversed.

Upon reviewing the footage that appeared to show the ball coming into contact with the arm of Bryan Mbeumo before Matheus Cunha tucked away his rebounded shot, Michael Salisbury put the whistle to his lips and announced his call.

“After review, the decision of goal stands because the handball offence is accidental,” he said, as Sky Sports co-commentator Gary Neville echoes the words ‘goal stands’ in disbelief before the man in the middle had even finished.

“Therefore, the final decision is goal.” So, should it have stood?

Was it handball?

The best place to start is with the definition of handball under the FA’s Law 12 of the game, Fouls and Misconduct. A player commits a handball offence if they:

The goal wasn’t scored from an arm. Tick. Nor was it scored immediately after the ball touched the arm. Tick. The key to this incident is the ball first coming into contact with Mbeumo’s hip, and then touching his arm.

Players have long been screaming ‘handball’ for cases where a player deliberately plays the ball with a legal part of their body, usually the foot, and it subsequently deflects off of the arm at any point below the armpit. Such incidents are more easily recognisable as accidental. However, Salisbury had a decision to make that erred on the subjective side.

The Frenchman’s right arm was somewhat away from the centre of his body, which could be interpreted in several ways. One: he moved his arms out to control the ball with his knee or stomach, resulting in the ball stopping at his feet or moving the other way. His hand would be in the way, after all, so it is taken out of the equation.

Yet this wasn’t quite what happened, as the ball bounces out towards and onto his arm off of the right side of his hip. Such is only one recounting, though, without considering that the ball seemed like it might’ve past by him had it not struck the arm.

With it away from the centre of his body, perhaps the forward anticipated this might happen. Perhaps he didn’t, as is the subjective nature of the decision to overrule VAR’s interpretation of handball.

Which brings us to interpretation two: Mbeumo moves his arm out and down to see the ball wedged in between his hip and his arm – taking “a risk of their hand/arm being hit”.

It’s this option that the referee didn’t algin with, one that Forest were furious with. To play devil’s advocate in their eyes, Mbeumo’s arm flew up the second after and could’ve indicated an effort to move his arm away.

Does it matter?

Of course, United were well on their way to returning to Europe and Vitor Pereira’s side were already safe from the threat of relegation to the Championship.

But as with all big refereeing calls, the decision sets a precedent. If Mbeumo is to have been interpreted as accidentally handled the ball or not, what’s more difficult to debate is the advantage United gained from the ball hitting his arm.

The 26-year-old could have seen the ball rebound away from his feet and into the path of a defender, reducing the chance he eventually gets the shot away and it falls to the feet of Cunha.

It is a call that will divide opinion over VAR yet again, despite the rarity of it agreeing with fans who are up in arms.

At best, IFAB deem that the referee exercised his own judgement correctly. At worst, Mbeumo circumvented the guidelines around accidental handballs and went without sanction.

If you enjoy our articles, make sure to favourite us on Onefootball and head to fromthespot.co.uk to discover more on the top stories in football as they happen.