Ref Watch: Dermot Gallagher analyses Jarrod Bowen penalty, Ivan Toney free-kick and more from the Premier League | Football News

Jarrod Bowen should have been awarded a penalty against Sheffield United, says Ref Watch’s Dermot Gallagher, who also looks at Ivan Toney’s contentious free-kick.

Dermot: Bowen should have been given a penalty

INCIDENT: West Ham were adamant they should have had a penalty for Anel Ahmedhodzic’s challenge on Jarrod Bowen, but the referee gave it the other way as a handball.

DERMOT SAYS: “I think it’s a penalty and I thought it was when I first saw it.

“The clue for me is the defender is looking away from the ball. The ball comes over his head and he drags Bowen down.

“But the referee gave a handball against Bowen, with his argument being that he thinks Bowen has got hold of the defender first and that’s why his arm is in that position.

“VAR thought it was a handball, that’s their judgement.

“Regarding the whistle [for full-time], VAR can still check and the players are told not to leave the field of play. We saw it at Brighton a few years ago.

“Until the VAR check is completed either way, the players have to stay on the pitch and a penalty can be given and taken.”

Warnock: How officials and VAR did not see it was a penalty is staggering

Stephen Warnock on Ref Watch:

“I think it’s a horrendous decision and I understand the pressure of being at Bramall Lane, 2-2, big game, final minute and you have to make a decision.

“But I’m sorry, that’s your job. That is the position you’ve put yourself in as a referee.

“What are they thinking in the VAR booth? At what point are you thinking it’s a not penalty and then saying ‘it’s all good to carry on’.

“We’re getting far too many of these incidents where you’ve got a back-up plan with VAR, but at the moment, referees are so scared to make decisions.

“It’s so clear that it’s a penalty and how you’ve got a referee and VAR, plus assistants, who don’t see it is just staggering.”

Dermot: VAR can’t intervene on Toney free-kick movement

INCIDENT: Ivan Toney scored a controversial free-kick goal in Brentford’s win against Nottingham Forest.

Toney was seen to move the ball – and the referee’s vanishing spray – to the right of where it had originally been placed following Orel Mangala’s foul on Mikel Damsgaard on the edge of the Forest box.

Toney went on to curl his free-kick wide of the Forest wall and in at the near post. Forest ended up losing the game 3-2.

Nottingham Forest have written to the head of Premier League referees asking for clarity on the incident:

DERMOT SAYS: “The referee is in control and he decides where to start.

“VAR can’t get involved – let’s make that clear. The assistant may have said something to the referee.

“It’s difficult to say whether it contravened any laws because we can’t put the ball on a blade of grass that’s exact.

“The referee puts the ball where he thinks the foul has taken place, Toney has moved it a little bit to the right – being cheeky, if you like – is he spotting it up, is he moving it to try and get a better angle? Only he knows.

“But that being said, he has moved it – there’s no doubt about that. The referee has got his back to it so he can’t see it, but there’s nothing stopping the Forest players moving across either.

“I’d like to think, if it was on the penalty spot, the referee would be looking at it and not have his back to play.

“Therefore the referee would see him move it and say ‘you’ve got to put it on the spot somewhere underneath the ball’.

“That being said, you can move it across the penalty mark – it’s not exactly in the middle, it can be underneath so there is a bit of latitude.”

Do Forest have a case to answer with the PGMOL?

Dermot Gallagher on Ref Watch:

“Forest feel aggrieved, there’s no doubt about that, but the referee is in charge and he decided they could restart from that point. The referees decision on the day is final.”

Stephen Warnock on Ref Watch:

“I find it strange that they’ve written to the PGMOL, everyone has bought it up in the press. The referees will look at it and think about it next time.

“The goalkeeper before any free-kick is taken is go back to his position on the post and look at it finally to say to his wall ‘you’re in the right position’.

“The job of the wall is also to make sure that they’re watching the free-kick taker to see what’s going on, so I don’t understand this around the ball moving – the players can move as well.”

Back at Bramall Lane: A penalty and two red cards

INCIDENT: There was more late drama at Bramall Lane for referee Michael Salisbury, who awarded Sheffield United a penalty as Alphonse Areola was deemed to have fouled Oli McBurnie.

DERMOT SAYS: “My first reaction was penalty. We’ve seen goalkeepers come out and not get the ball, which Areola doesn’t, and you also have to look at if McBurnie catches him with his arm in the air. Is it a free-kick to the goalkeeper?

“Does McBurnie challenge him fairly? Maybe not.

“VAR has to be convinced with what the referee has feedback on what he’s seen that it’s a clear and obvious. I don’t think with what he said to the VAR, they can intervene.”

INCIDENT: There were also two red cards at Bramall Lane. The first was to Rhian Brewster for a tackle on Emerson, after Michael Salisbury had initially booked him VAR recommended a second look.

DERMOT SAYS: “It is a really poor challenge. The distance he has come and the impact he’s hit him with… I don’t think anyone will disagree that it’s a red card.”

INCIDENT: Vladimir Coufal – who was booked in the Brewster incident – was then shown a second yellow card for a foul on James McAtee.

DERMOT SAYS: “The conundrum is he gets a yellow card for protesting about the original tackle and while I can’t condone him dissenting against the referee, I can understand that he’s upset.

“Unfortunately, a few minutes later, that yellow card becomes very important because the tackle then has a direct impact on the first one and he gets sent off.”