Howard Webb has revealed why David Brooks was not expelled by Bournemouth against Chelsea in mid -January, despite the fact that referee Rob Jones was sent to the monitor.
Chelsea had led the game at Stamford Bridge after a sumptuous goal by Cole Pale in the first 15 minutes, but Bournemouth caught him after Justin Kluivert arrived home a penalty five minutes after the restart
While the hosts sought to return to the top, Marc Cucurella on the left flank was eager to stimulate an attack, but was shot down by David Brooks in his own half with a challenge that seemed to involve Bournemouth midfielder by pulling the hair of the International of Spain.
Although the commentators compared the gesture with a wrestling tide action, Jones did not originally punish the incident, but it was advised to consult the pitschside monitor by the VAR team for a possible violent behavior.
After a long wait in western London, Jones gave Brooks a yellow card only, rejecting the team guide in stockley Park after being sent to the monitor for the first time.
PGMOL – The board of the professionals of professional games of the referees – Webb Chief, who spoke in the officials of the MIC -D UP party, has now explained why a red card was not shown, and why was the right decision .
Howard Webb has revealed why David Brooks (left) was not expelled for his clash with Marc Cucurella (right)
The incident occurred when Cucurella seemed to fall after being stopped by Brooks
Webb revealed that referee Rob Jones was sent to the screen for a review that lost the initial incident
“In this situation, the referee did not see any of the situation in the field,” Webb began. 'It wasn't something that was seen when David Brooks and Marc Cucurella joined.
'That is important because when Cucurella goes down and Var looks at this footage, he is the first officer to see him. Therefore, he is not looking at the situation and judging it against the call that is made in the field and deciding whether that call in the field is clear and obviously incorrect.
“So, when Var looks at it, he is looking at him and thinking” ok, is that a red card crime? “And when he sees David Brooks's left arm, Cucurella's front, calls him something like a clothesline or something similar.
'It has to be something that Var really believes that it could be a red card and, therefore, sends a referee to the screen for that purpose. When the referee comes there, he looks at him and says “ok, thanks. But according to the images I am looking at, I don't think it's a quite a red card.” You hear it say that it is not an act of brutality.
'So I think that in general, Rob Jones makes the right decision. (He) considers that it is not a conclusive red card, but it is clearly something that is at least imprudent and, therefore, shows a yellow card and has absolutely his right to do so.
'So we really thought it was a good use of Var to show Rob Jones a possible red card. And he makes his own determination that it is not entirely red, but it is collected and, therefore, yellow.
It is believed that Varham Scott Scott's officer told Jones at that time 'is his gift', a cryptic message that left some in doubt about the decision -making process.
In a statement issued after the decision, the PGMOL said: 'VAR recommended a review in the field for a possible red card to Brooks for violent behavior.
Jones looked at the screen and chose to show only one yellow card: the first time a red card review was rejected.
Cucurella was indignant: the game ended 2-2 after a last free kick from Reece James
Webb has also broken his silence on the red card that shows Myles Lewis-Skell of Arsenal
“When reviewing, the referee considered that the challenge about Cucurella was an reckless action and not a violent behavior, and issued a yellow card to Brooks.”
Webb also talked about the incident that saw Myles Lewis-Skelly sent for Arsenal against Wolves, before the decision was overturned after the game.
“From the beginning, we would prefer a yellow card in this situation,” Webb said. 'The referee felt it was a serious dirty game, the VAR verified the images to see if the call was clear and obviously wrong and felt no, seeing that the contact was quite high on the leg.
'But we know that for a serious dirty game, we need excessive force or brutality and what we see here is that high contact (alone) looking and leaving the leg quite quickly.
'Then, for that reason, all in the game have formed the same conclusion that this is not at the end of a serious dirty game, due to that contact looking. Because the stallions really do not go directly to the leg, they look before down.
'I listened to this described as a really horrible offense decision. That is not! I understand why the referee saw this in the day as a serious action of bad game.