If Lacroix Saw Red at Man Utd, Why Did Guehi Escape at Liverpool? Dissecting Premier League Consistency

The beautiful game is often clouded by the grey. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Premier League’s VAR room, where split-second interpretations of the laws spark endless debate. Two incidents, separated by mere weeks, have reignited the perennial conversation about consistency in officiating. When Maxence Lacroix was dismissed for fouling Matheus Cunha at Old Trafford, the immediate echo was from Anfield: what about Marc Guehi on Mohamed Salah? This isn’t just fan grievance; it’s a critical examination of the line between a tactical foul and a clear goalscoring opportunity, and the high-stakes randomness that can define a season.

The Incidents: A Side-by-Side Breakdown

To understand the controversy, we must first isolate the moments in question. While they share a superficial similarity, the devil—and the decision—is in the detail.

The Lacroix Red Card (Man Utd 3-0 Crystal Palace): In the 67th minute, with Palace trailing 1-0, Mathees Cunha receives a ball over the top, sprinting into the right channel of the penalty area. Maxence Lacroix, caught on the turn, grabs a handful of Cunha’s shirt, pulling him back. Cunha goes down. Referee Jarred Gillett points to the spot and, after a VAR check for denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO), shows Lacroix a straight red card.

The Guehi Non-Call (Liverpool 1-1 Crystal Palace): In the 56th minute at Anfield, Mohamed Salah is played through on the right side of the box, marginally ahead of Marc Guehi. Guehi’s left arm makes clear contact with Salah’s right arm/shoulder, tugging as the Egyptian attempts to shoot. Salah stumbles but stays on his feet, getting a shot away that is saved by Sam Johnstone. Referee Andy Madley waves play on. VAR David Coote checks and advises no clear and obvious error, so no penalty is awarded, and Guehi receives no card.

Expert Analysis: Decoding the Laws of the Game

According to the IFAB Laws, a DOGSO red card requires four elements to be considered: distance to goal, general direction of play, likelihood of keeping/gaining control of the ball, and location/number of defenders. Applying this framework reveals why officials may have diverged.

• Control and Possession: This is the most critical distinction. Lacroix’s foul occurred before Cunha could take a touch to control the ball rolling away from him. The pull likely prevented that control entirely. Guehi’s contact came as Salah was already shaping to shoot, having taken a touch. The argument was Salah retained control and got his shot away.
• Impact on the Player: Cunha was pulled to the ground, his opportunity eradicated. Salah, despite the tug, remained upright and completed his shooting motion. The officials seemingly deemed the contact insufficient to deny the opportunity, as the shot still happened.
• Direction and Defenders: Both attackers were in the right channel. Lacroix was arguably the last man, with no covering defender able to intervene. For Guehi, the presence and proximity of Joachim Andersen may have subtly influenced the “number of defenders” calculus, though this is debatable.

“The key differentiator for me is the phase of play,” says a former Premier League referee speaking under anonymity. “Lacroix’s foul prevents any opportunity from materializing. With Guehi, the opportunity is actively unfolding; Salah is in his shooting stride. While it’s a foul anywhere else on the pitch, the threshold for ‘clear and obvious’ overturn on the DOGSO element wasn’t met for VAR. That doesn’t make it right, but it explains the protocol.”

This highlights the immense subjectivity in the phrase “clear and obvious.” One panel of officials saw a red card and penalty as undeniable. Another saw a incident best left to the on-field referee’s initial judgment.

The Consistency Conundrum: What This Means for the Premier League

For players, managers, and fans, this inconsistency is maddening. It creates a landscape of unpredictable outcomes where the severity of punishment seems like a lottery. The consequences are profound:

• Competitive Integrity: Crystal Palace found themselves down to 10 men for a crucial 25+ minutes at Old Trafford, fundamentally altering the match. At Anfield, they retained 11 men and a point. The tactical and psychological impact is colossal.
• Player Safety and Fair Play: If the line for a foul is blurred, it encourages defenders to test that boundary. The “I stayed on my feet” paradox is reinforced: Salah’s attempt to stay upright may have cost his team a penalty, while going down guarantees a review.
• Erosion of Trust: Each of these incidents chips away at the credibility of the officiating system. When comparisons are this stark, the explanation of “subjective interpretation” feels like an excuse for a lack of standardized application.

The Premier League’s obsession with the “high threshold” for VAR intervention, designed to protect the flow of the game, often creates more controversy than it resolves. It places an impossible burden on the “clear and obvious” standard, which is inherently a matter of opinion.

Predictions and Pathways: Can This Be Fixed?

This is not an isolated problem. It recurs weekly. So, what happens next? We foresee several potential developments:

1. A Summer of Clarification: The PGMOL (Professional Game Match Officials Limited) will likely issue new, more precise guidelines to referees on the “phase of play” distinction. Expect a focus on defining the moment a player is “in control” versus “completing an action.”

2. The Semi-Automated Offside Catalyst: The introduction of semi-automated offside technology next season will speed up one part of VAR. This could, in theory, free up mental bandwidth and time for officials to scrutinize subjective fouls more consistently, though that is optimistic.

3. The Push for Transparency: Pressure will mount for the live broadcast of VAR audio. Hearing the dialogue between officials for incidents like Guehi-Salah would at least provide context, even if it doesn’t change the outcome. Understanding the reasoning in real-time is the first step to accepting it.

4. A Cultural Shift in Defense: Defenders will become even more adept at the “professional” foul in the box—the calculated tug that occurs simultaneously with a shot or cross, gambling that it won’t be deemed significant enough. The art of defensive deception will evolve alongside the technology.

Final Whistle: A Game of Inches and Interpretations

The Lacroix and Guehi incidents are not perfect mirrors, but they are close enough to demand a mirror-like consistency. The nuanced differences in the phase of play provide a technical, law-based explanation for the divergent outcomes. Yet, for a sport striving for perfection through technology, the lingering feeling is one of injustice and arbitrariness.

Ultimately, the Premier League’s quest for flawless officiating is a fool’s errand because the laws themselves are interpreted by humans. The solution isn’t more technology, but a radical simplification and standardization of how those laws are applied. Until then, we will continue to have weekends where a shirt pull is a red card and a penalty, and a shirt pull is a clever piece of defending. The line between tactical foul and DOGSO remains the finest of grey lines, and which side you fall on can change your season—based on which official is watching and his interpretation of a moment in time. The debate, like the season, marches on.

Source: Based on news from Sky Sports.

Image: CC licensed via commons.wikimedia.org