Newcastle United Seeks Answers on Penalty Decision Against Chelsea
Newcastle United has formally asked the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), the organization responsible for referees in English football, for clarification regarding a controversial no-penalty decision in their recent match against Chelsea. The incident occurred during Saturday’s game, which ended in a 2-2 draw.
The point of contention arose when Newcastle’s winger, Anthony Gordon, went down in the penalty area following a challenge by Chelsea defender Trevoh Chalobah. The on-field referee, Andy Madley, did not award a penalty, and the Video Assistant Referee (VAR), Peter Bankes, upheld the decision. VAR stated that the contact was “side-to-side in a shielding action.”
Newcastle United’s manager, Eddie Howe, expressed his disagreement with the ruling after the game. He stated his belief that a penalty should have been awarded, describing the foul as clear. The club has now taken the step of formally requesting PGMOL to explain the reasoning behind the decision.
Speaking to the media, Howe confirmed that the club has contacted PGMOL to gain insight into the decision-making process. He said, “We will be seeking clarification [over the penalty], I think that call’s [to PGMOL, referees body] already gone in, not from me personally, but from the club. We just want to know the thought process behind the decisions.”
The incident has sparked debate among football commentators and former players. Ally McCoist, a commentator, described the incident as a “stonewall penalty,” indicating his strong conviction that a penalty should have been given. He expressed surprise that the referee and VAR did not see it the same way.
Former Chelsea players, Joe Cole, also weighed in on the incident, suggesting that Chalobah’s challenge was overly aggressive. Another commentator, Pat Nevin, described the challenge as “risky,” stating that Chalobah did not get the ball and that it was a “big call” not to award a penalty.
The Premier League Match Centre, which provides explanations for key decisions, stated that the VAR check confirmed the referee’s initial decision. They deemed the contact from Chalobah to be “side-to-side in a shielding action” and that the ball was within playing distance.
Manager Howe disputed this explanation, stating that the defender was only looking at the player and not the ball, and that the challenge was excessively aggressive. He said, “In my opinion, it’s a clear penalty. I think anywhere else on the pitch it’s a free-kick. The player has gone into Anthony too aggressively, so I think it’s stonewall. It’s not [side-to-side shielding]. The defender only looks at Anthony and not the ball and is too aggressive.”
Newcastle United’s request for clarification highlights the ongoing scrutiny of refereeing decisions in football, particularly with the use of VAR. While VAR aims to eliminate clear and obvious errors, disagreements and interpretations of incidents continue to occur, leading to clubs seeking explanations from the refereeing body. The outcome of Newcastle’s request for clarification from PGMOL remains to be seen.
