Question Number: 35917

Mechanics 5/20/2025

RE: 6

Peter Cottam of Accrington, Lancashire United Kingdom asks...

The Dean Henderson incident at the cup final shouldn't there have been a free kick anyway for handball?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Peter
Thanks for the question.
Much has been said and written about the incident.
In real time the referee and the assistant deemed that there was no obvious offence to award a direct free kick for deliberate handling. Both I suspect were unsure and decided that the swat away of the ball by the goalkeeper was on the line or inside the penalty area and therefore no offence.
Had that free kick been awarded it was certain that disciplinary sanction be taken as well of either a caution for unsporting behaviour for stopping a promising attack or a dismissal for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Now the incident was reviewed by VAR. VAR may assist the referee ONLY in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ or ‘serious missed incident’ in relation to:
a. Goal/no goal
b. Penalty/no penalty
c. Direct red card (not second yellow card/caution)
d. Mistaken identity (when the referee cautions or sends off the wrong player of the offending team).
If it is not one of these four situations VAR cannot act on it.

VAR decided that it did not meet all of the 4 criteria for denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity and therefore it was not a red card dismissal. That is the reason why VAR did not involve the referee in an on field review as it had to be a direct red card offence to do so. VAR has no role in regular offences on the field of play.
Personally I believe it was an obvious goal scoring opportunity and that the judgement by VAR that, as the ball was going away from goal, Haaland did not have a clear goalscoring chance was flawed. The reason the ball was going away from goal was because the goalkeeper knocked it away in that direction.
Having said that the English game has in my opinion been always slow to go with DOGSO red cards in situations where there is a hint of going away from goal so I can perhaps see how a VAR official could opine that it was not a clear DOGSO red card.
I also think that VAR at times could have been used better and that the strict interpretation of the guidelines has not been helpful in outlier events. My way of looking at it would have been to involve the referee in the decision yet the English game is reluctant to do that with very few if any reviews resulting in a no decision. Any time I see a referee going to the monitor it is unlikely to result in any change of the reason to send the referee to review. Had the referee been sent to the monitor I could not have seen any decision other than a free kick and a dismissal. The disallowed 2nd goal by Crystal Palace was good use of VAR.
So in many ways Crystal Palace got lucky on the day as it could easily have been a red card dismissal. Those that suggest scraping VAR would be the same people who would also complain about no process to review incidents. The vast majority of VAR calls are correct and that a few errors over a full season is not a reason to scrap the system. It just needs further refinement to deal with the outlier events and perhaps even a change to the Laws to allow for those to be dealt with.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Peter,
I found it oddly disconcerting that Henderson’s handling of the ball apparently outside the box (PA) wasn’t included in the official highlights, especially given how controversial the incident was. It’s almost as if they were choosing to downplay the incident to avoid fueling debates or criticism of officiating decisions. It is possible they wanted to shift focus to other key moments in the match rather than spotlighting a refereeing controversy. But fans and analysts usually catch these omissions, and discussions continue regardless!

There’s always a delicate balance between protecting the integrity of the game and managing public perception. When a controversial moment isn’t included in the highlights, people naturally start questioning the motives behind it—whether it’s an attempt to control the narrative, avoid backlash, or simply steer attention elsewhere In football, the penalty area boundary line is part of the penalty area, meaning if any part of the ball is touching the line when handled, it’s still considered inside the box—regardless of where the goalkeeper is standing. I tell people to imagine boundary lines whether they’re touch line’s goal lines or PA lines as if they were five-inch walls of water extending straight into the sky and if any part of the ball is wet that ball is inside that area. Bouncing in the air and very close it can be difficult to visually determine by eye if they intersect the plane just barely, given the ball is curved. Although VAR should have the technology to render that possible I don't believe it was requested?. I would love to hear the discussion on the mic of what went on.

Henderson’s penalty save and crucial stops helped Palace lift the English FA Cup, The fans must have loved that Henderson after being let go has outperformed the current Man Utd Cameroonian goalkeeper Onana.

Although from the replays and analysis, I have seen it appears that Dean Henderson’s hand could have contacted the ball fully outside the penalty area, which is why it could have been considered as a handball offense. The VAR review was not focused on the handling contact point because an actual foul outside the penalty area is always determined by the on field referee if they have a view of it which they did. VAR only considered if it was a denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) Some pundits and fans have argued that the ball might have been slightly on/over the plane of the line, but if the official ruling was that of the handling was outside the box there must be a mandatory DFK. awarded. If there’s a clearer camera angle, it could settle the debate once and for all! I think VAR should have taken a closer look at the exact Position of the ball but technically that's not their mandate for fouls outside the PA seen by the on-field referees

If the Dean Henderson’s handball incident, provided no free kick and no caution given??? Then the CR decision on the field must have been there was no foul.
The argument that Haaland was moving away from goal, so it wasn’t considered a clear denial of a goal-scoring opportunity has no merit if there was no foul. Doesn’t matter how many fans and pundits strongly disagreed.

While I'm very glad at the result and how things went for the game. I hold the opinion that Henderson was extremely fortunate that he wasn't tossed for DOGSOh, CP goes a man down and a direct free kick given. It would take a very charitable benevolent referee to consider only a caution for breaking up an obvious attacking and awarding the DFK if he clearly saw it as a foul. Referee with integrity sees what he sees, if they see it differently we agree to disagree and move on, as long as the LOTG remain in force for WHAT they believe they saw!
Cheers