Gameweek 11 of the 2023-24 Premier League season was one of the most controversial weekends of top-flight football we’ve seen in a while. Indeed, there were enough controversial and debatable calls by the officials in Monday night’s game between Tottenham and Chelsea alone to fill several matchweeks. So much so that it deserves its own section.
Here are the most contentious decisions from that game and other matches this weekend.
TOTTENHAM 1-4 CHELSEA
Incident 1: Destiny Udogie makes a tackle on Raheem Sterling. Referee Michael Oliver gives Udogie a yellow card for the tackle. Replays show Udogie lunged in with a dangerous two-footed which Sterling luckily pulled out of. VAR checked the incident but decided it should not be upgraded to a red card.
Verdict: That tackle from Udogie, despite not making direct contact with Sterling, deserved a red card. It was a reckless challenge and the Spurs defender was lucky not to have been sent off.
Incident 2: Cristian Romero kicks out at Levi Colwill while on the ground in an off-the-ball incident. No action is taken against Romero.
Verdict: Again, this action should have warranted a red card for Romero. Surprisingly, the VAR did not alert the referee to this incident and ask him to take a look at it.
Incident 3: Son puts the ball in the back of Chelsea’s net but it is ruled out for offside.
Verdict: This was a correct call. It was tight but replays show Son was slightly ahead of the last man when the pass was made to him.
Incident 4: Sterling scores a goal but VAR disallows it for handball.
Verdict: Ball bounced off Sterling’s arm and back into his path before he scored. The rules state that in the event that the ball comes off the offensive player’s arm leading to a goal whether it was accidental or not, the goal is then disallowed. The decision was the correct one.
Incident 5: Moises Caicedo’s goal was ruled out because of possible interference by a player in an offside position. The player in question was Nicholas Jackson. The forward did not touch the ball but was in the line of the goalkeeper Vicario.
Verdict: The legitimacy of the goal hinged on whether Jackson was in an offside position when the shot was struck by Caicedo. It was a tight call but VAR eventually ruled that the forward was offside. As such the goal could not stand.
Incident 6: Directly after the incident involving Caicedo, the ball falls to Enzo who is tackled by Romero. After a long VAR check, referee awards a penalty to Chelsea and sends off Romero.
Verdict: The decision to award a penalty was a correct one as Romero made significant contact with Enzo’s leg inside the box despite touching the ball first. The case of “double jeopardy” (where referees often give only yellows when penalties are awarded) does not apply here as exceptions include when the foul falls under dangerous play. Romero’s studs caught Enzo’s shins.
Incident 7: Eric Dier gets on the end of a flick-on from a free-kick and fires home for Spurs but it is ruled out for offside. VAR affirms this decision.
Verdict: This was a correct decision. There was some debate about whether Bentancur or Disasi got the touch on the flick-on. Once it was determined that the Spurs player got the touch, Dier was offside.
FULHAM 0-1 MAN UTD
The Incident: A free-kick finds its way to Garnacho whose ball across is tucked home by Scott McTominay. The goal is however ruled out as Maguire is offside.
What IFAB’s rules say (23/24):
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
• interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision; challenging an opponent for the ball or clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent; or making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.
Verdict: Replays show Maguire was offside when the free-kick was taken. His attempt to play the ball (despite not touching it) clearly falls into the criteria provided by IFAB. The term “subjective offside” is used to show that the referee had to decide whether Maguire’s actions were impeding the opponent’s ability to play the ball. This is in comparison with “objective offside” where the player who is offside is the one who makes the definitive touch.
NEWCASTLE 0-1 ARSENAL
Incident 1: Kai Havertz lunges into a tackle on Anthony Gordon. Referee awards him a yellow card.
Verdict: This should have been a red card. Havertz’s tackle was a very dangerous one as his studs missed Gordon’s leg by inches. Any contact could have been disastrous.
Incident 2: Bruno Guimaraes appears to elbow Jorginho on the back of the head.
Verdict: Guimaraes definitely should have seen red for his cumulative fouls in this game. This challenge on Jornigho was probably one that could have seen him get a red card on its own as well.
Incident 2: Joe Willock recovers the ball on the touchline, and crosses for Joelinton who diverts the ball into Gordon’s path for him to score.
This was the most controversial decision of the weekend. There were checks for three different incidents, whether the ball went out of play, whether Joelinton fouled Gabriel and whether Gordon was offside.
Verdict: Did the ball go out of play?: Replays suggest that the ball might have gone out of play. However, an argument was that there could be a part of the ball hanging over the line despite not touching it. VAR ruled that there wasn’t a conclusive enough angle to show that the ball crossed the line before Willock got to it.
Did Joelinton foul Gabriel?: Absolutely: He had two hands on Gabriel’s back, shoving him to the ground and out of the way.
Did the ball hit Joelinton’s arm?: The ball appeared to hit the Brazilian on the arm in the move.
Was Gordon offside?: Close but doesn’t seem like it. Replays and VAR lines indicate that Joelinton was slightly ahead of Gordon before the ball was played across.
Newcastle’s goal should not have stood.
