The fallout from Arsenal’s overturned penalty against Newcastle has taken center stage this week, with fans, pundits, and former referees questioning the consistency of officiating decisions under PGMOL chief Howard Webb.
In the aftermath of the match, Webb addressed the controversial moment involving Arsenal’s appeal for a penalty after goalkeeper Nick Pope collided with an opponent.
Howard Webb on Arsenal’s penalty vs Newcastle: “Nick Pope doesn’t really make contact with the opponent, they come together as a normal consequence – VAR saw it and deemed it as a clear error, I agree. The penalty was rightly overturned.”
While Webb’s explanation appeared straightforward, it has reignited frustration among Arsenal supporters. The crux of the debate lies in what many perceive as inconsistency in how similar incidents are judged.
Last season, when William Saliba headed the ball first during a clash with Brighton, contact was still deemed enough to award a penalty against Arsenal. At the time, Webb insisted that a “slight touch” wasn’t sufficient to overturn the on-field decision. Fast-forward to now, and Webb describes Pope’s involvement as a “clear” non-foul a stance that appears to contradict his earlier reasoning.
This discrepancy has led to accusations of double standards. Former PGMOL boss Keith Hackett, (@HACKETTREF), did not mince his words in criticizing the situation.
Keith says: “I am concerned that it appears to me that the PJOMOL, either through Howard Webb or other people involved, are manipulating the law to suit the decision that has been made on field. I would remind him of his explanation of Saliba and Pedro, that coming together, and his explanation. Now we’ve got the Nick Pope situation, where it’s my belief that the it doesn’t matter if he played it first.”
Curtesy: Football Insider
Hackett’s frustration highlights a growing concern among former officials and fans alike: that decisions are being retrofitted with explanations rather than applied with consistency. He went on to stress that the written laws of the game remain clear.
HACKETTREF added: “The law states the likelihood (1:08) of controlling the ball is in front of goal when it’s fouled. It’s a clear penalty kick. It’s a clear denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity. All the PJOMOL are doing is manipulating law interpretation to meet the referee’s decisions at the weekend. The reality is, the law doesn’t change. The interpretation needs to be clearly pointed out and clearly needs to be consistent.”
For Arsenal supporters, the issue cuts deeper than just one incident. It feeds into a wider narrative of frustration with officiating inconsistencies, especially when decisions directly influence the outcome of crucial matches.
Whether Webb’s defense of the overturned penalty will calm the storm remains to be seen, but what is clear is that questions around PGMOL’s consistency, and the credibility of VAR’s role in major decisions, are unlikely to go away anytime soon.
