It seems that the controversial arbitration case at the summit of Chelsea and Manchester United yesterday in the Premier League will not go unnoticed, especially after the allegations of one of the "Almaniu" players that the referee did not award a penalty to his team because of "the words that the decision might provoke."

The beginning of the story was in the first half of the match when the ball hit the hand of Calum Hudson-Odoi, Chelsea full-back, inside his team's penalty area. The video technique (mouse) referee noticed the main referee Stuart Atwell that there was a handball, and the referee called the mouse to the screen to watch the replay and after less than One minute Atwell refused to award the "Red Devils" a penalty.

Chelsea 0-0 Manchester Utd.

Here's today's highlights… #CHEMUN pic.twitter.com/ukHrKDxt6J

- Chelsea FC (@ChelseaFC) February 28, 2021

After the match, which ended in a goalless draw, England international Luke Shaw, Man United full-back, made fiery statements in which he claimed that his team-mate Harry Maguire, captain of the team, was shocked by the referee's justification for not awarding the team a penalty kick.

"The referee told Maguire," If a penalty is awarded, it will cause a lot of talk and arguments, and this is what I do not want, "Shaw said.

Referee Atwell - according to the British press - ignored the recommendation of Chrisa Kavenga, the referee of the mouse, to give "Almaniu" a penalty kick after the handball on Odoi.

In turn, the Norwegian Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, Manchester United coach - who objected strongly to the situation - said that "two points were taken from us (referring to the referee not awarding a penalty kick to his team)."

Solskjaer demonstrating to the official Hudson-Odoi's handball [@footballdaily]

pic.twitter.com/8YPdQubn5Z

- United Zone (@ManUnitedZone_) February 28, 2021

Fearing penalties and a ban from playing for several matches, the German United issued a statement yesterday in which he retracted Shaw's statements, stressing that the latter had not heard what Maguire had said clearly and had interpreted it incorrectly.

But this retraction will not save Shaw from the penalty, and according to the FA's rules of the game, "comments about referees that indicate their bias or attack their integrity, expose the player to charges of misconduct."

Shaw will not be able to know his punishment before Wednesday, because the federation has 3 working days to decide on the statements of the English international.

Regarding the controversial arbitration case, Al Jazeera Net's arbitration expert, Nasser Sadiq, says that the referee made a mistake by not counting a penalty in favor of Manchester United, because there was an intentional hand touch on Odoi inside his penalty area during the course of the game.


He adds that handball is one of the violations of Article 12 of the Football Law (mistakes and misconduct), which requires deliberate calculation - with the exception of the hand touch on the striker in the event that he scores a goal or a promising opportunity - and in this case there is a deliberate touch of the ball by a Chelsea player, and the most important consideration is In this is the unnatural movement of his hand, and it is his hand that went to the ball high at the level of the opponent's chest.

Sadiq added that some people may argue that the ball touched the hand of United striker Mason Greenwood as well, but the first touch that was supposed to be counted was on the Chelsea player, because the law punishes the mistake that occurred first.

He pointed out that despite the successive amendments to hand touch in Article 12 and the existence of the video assistive referee (VAR) technology, errors still exist in it due to miscalculation of some referees.

Sadiq explained that the International Legislative Council (IFAB), which is in charge of the football law, made an amendment last year in which it canceled the intention to attack the attacker in two cases only, as the amendment stipulated that any handball on the attacker is followed by a dangerous attack or a goal that is considered a violation without regard to intentionality or not. .

This amendment came after the controversy that hardly depended on the many goals scored, which were counted by the referees despite the presence of hand touches on the attackers immediately before them.