Premier League release statement on Evanilson handball winner vs Arsenal after goal given

Add as preferred source on Google

Arsenal suffered a frustrating defeat at home to Bournemouth on Saturday afternoon.

The Gunners limped through the game in second gear, with the players clearly distracted by their upcoming Champions League second leg tie against Paris Saint-Germain.

Declan Rice gave the North Londoners the lead against the Cherries, before Dean Huijsen’s header levelled the game up mid-way through the second half.

Evanilson scored the winner with 15 minutes left to play in controversial fashion, condemning Arsenal to just their fourth league defeat of the season.

• READ MORE: Five things learned from Arsenal v Bournemouth including Declan Rice’s brilliance and Dean Huijsen’s stunning Emirates audition

Premier League release statement on Evanilson goal vs Arsenal

Jarred Gillett was the official in charge on the pitch, but VAR Michael Salisbury had the final say on the most important decision on the day.

With the game poised at 1-1, Marcus Tavernier powerfully guided the ball towards the back post from a corner, before Evanilson battled Martin Odegaard to get enough on the ball to beat David Raya.

Replays indicated that the ball may well have struck the underside of the Brazilian’s elbow before crossing the line, but after a lengthy VAR examination, the goal was given.

The Premier League released a statement explaining the Video Assistant’s decision: “The referee’s call of goal was checked and confirmed by VAR – with no conclusive evidence that Evanilson handled the ball before scoring.”

Arsenal were unable to respond to falling behind, with the conentious moment ultimately determining the outcome of the game.

VAR got the Evanilson handball decision wrong in Arsenal v Bournemouth

The decision cost Arsenal, and it was the incorrect call.

One birds-eye angle on the broadcast clearly showed that the ball came off Evanilson’s elbow, which caused it to move back towards the ground.

Had it bounced off the striker’s torso, it wouldn’t have moved downwards, and this should be deemed conclusive evidence.

In a game of such tight margins, VAR has to be certain that no rules were breached to give a goal like that, and the visual evidence suggested it was much more likely that it did strike his arm.

Similar ‘inconclusive’ examples have gone against Arsenal in recent seasons – there have been incidents where Kai Havertz had a marginal goal ruled out for something that wasn’t clearly shown in the footage, and the same for an offside decision for Gabriel Martinelli against Brighton a few years ago.