The Premier League's Key Match Incidents (KMI) panel has said the decision to allow a Manchester United goal against Ipswich after an apparent handball by Harry Maguire was correct and added that VAR should have intervened to award Arsenal a penalty against Aston Villa.
The ball appeared to come off Maguire's hand as he controlled it just outside the penalty area during the match on Aug. 30. He then unleashed a shot, which was going wide before being deflected in by Jacob Greaves in United's 5-2 win.
The handball was deemed to be accidental by both referee Craig Pawson and VAR Jarred Gillett, and because Maguire's shot did not go in directly, that meant the goal was allowed to stand.
The KMI Panel is an independent group comprised of three former players or coaches, one Premier League representative and one from Pro Ref. Panel findings on key incidents in every game-week are being published this season for the first time.
The Panel notes on this incident, published on Wednesday morning, said: "Maguire's arms are within his bodyline, meaning that the contact with his right arm was accidental and not a punishable handball offence given that Maguire was not the goal scorer.
"The shot was clearly off-target and then deflected in via the defender for a clear own goal. The panel supported the referee's call to award the goal, 4:1, with one panellist considering the handball to be deliberate."
On the day of the match, the Premier League's Match Centre account on X posted: "The referee's call of goal for Manchester United was checked and confirmed by VAR - with it deemed that Maguire was not the immediate goalscorer after an accidental handball."
The same post also quoted the VAR: "It's an own goal and the accidental handball is not punishable, so we recommend you award the goal."
Elsewhere, the panel felt VAR should have intervened to award Arsenal a penalty in their match at Aston Villa on Aug. 31 for a challenge by Ian Maatsen on Bruno Guimarães. No foul was given but the panel unanimously felt it should have been, either on-field or after review.
- Marcus Rashford returns to training ahead of Manchester United's Champions League clash
- Premier League VAR review: Should Forest's goal have stood vs. Spurs?
"Clear contact was made on the attacker's standing leg and Maatsen made no contact with the ball," the panel notes read.
"They also felt that VAR should have intervened as the non-penalty award was a clear and obvious error."
The panel also felt the "reckless" challenge by Maatsen was worthy of a second caution.
The panel also disagreed three to two with the decision to award Nottingham Forest a penalty at Liverpool for a challenge by goalkeeper Alisson Becker on Neco Williams in the match on Aug. 29, but believed VAR was right not to overturn it because it did not meet the threshold of a clear and obvious error.
The panel also disagreed 4-1 with the on-field decision not to award Brentford a penalty at Leeds on the same day for Jayden Bogle's challenge on Kevin Schade, but again felt it did not meet the threshold of a clear and obvious error which would require VAR to overturn it.
Overall, the panel identified 21 KMIs in the second match round, with 76% dealt with correctly on-field in its view. That percentage rose to 90 after VAR interventions.
