The Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel has supported the referee’s decision not to award a penalty to Amad Diallo during Manchester United’s draw against Bournemouth.
The incident took place inside the penalty area when Bournemouth defender Adrien Truffert placed both hands on Diallo. The winger fell, but referee Stuart Attwell chose not to give a penalty. VAR official Craig Pawson reviewed the moment and decided not to intervene, stating there was no clear and obvious error.
Soon after the incident, Bournemouth launched a counterattack and equalized through Ryan Christie in the 67th minute. The moment proved crucial, as Manchester United missed the chance to extend their lead to 2-0.
The KMI Panel reviewed the situation and reached a narrow 3-2 decision against awarding a penalty. The majority believed that while Truffert took a risk, the contact lacked enough force to justify a foul. They concluded that the action did not meet the required threshold for a penalty.
However, two members of the panel disagreed. They argued that the defender’s actions were not part of normal play and should have resulted in a penalty.
Despite the split opinion, all panel members agreed that VAR handled the situation correctly. They emphasized that VAR should only overturn decisions when there is a clear and obvious mistake, which was not the case here.
Manchester United expressed frustration after the match, raising concerns about inconsistency in decision-making. The team pointed to another penalty awarded earlier in the game when Alex Jimenez fouled Matheus Cunha.
Manager Michael Carrick questioned the logic behind the decisions. He argued that both incidents appeared similar and should have received the same outcome. He described the situation as confusing and difficult to understand.
Football analysts also shared similar concerns. Some believed that once the referee awarded one penalty for holding, consistency required a similar decision in Diallo’s case.
The KMI Panel, however, supported the earlier penalty awarded to Cunha with a unanimous 5-0 vote, reinforcing the view that the two incidents differed in impact and severity.
