Another week, another handball controversy in European football.
Premier League side Newcastle traveled to the French capital to take on Paris Saint-Germain in Champions League group stage play, with the knockout stage lives of both clubs on the line.
With just one more match to play and the Group F standings tight as can be, the points were of significant value at Parc des Princes on Tuesday. As Newcastle weathered storm after storm, consistently under siege, it appeared as if Alexander Isak's 24th minute goal would be enough to snatch all three points.
Yet PSG finally found their moment as the hosts were awarded a controversial penalty in the eighth minute of stoppage time, securing a 1-1 draw and sharing the points at the death, dropping Newcastle out of a qualifying position in the process with just one match remaining.
MORE: Recap, highlights of Newcastle's 1-1 draw with PSG in Champions League
How were PSG awarded a penalty against Newcastle?
With Newcastle leading 1-0 in the 98th minute of play, PSG were pushing hard for a late equalising goal.
An entry feed to Ousmane Dembele in the penalty area forced the Frenchman to stretch out his right leg to collect the pass. As the ball came off his outstretched foot, it popped into the air and into the chest of Tino Livramento, subsequently deflecting off the 21-year-old's chest and into his arm, which was up at a 90-degree angle in a chicken wing position.
While no penalty was awarded on-field by Polish referee Szymon Marciniak, VAR official Tomasz Kwiatkowski recommended an on-field review for a possible penalty. Marciniak reviewed the incident on-screen, and decided to award a penalty. The goal resulted in PSG's 31st and final shot of the match, which Kylian Mbappe buried to even the score at 1-1
The decision caused an uproar within the football community as Newcastle felt punished for an innocuous passage of play.
WATCH THE DECISION: United States | United Kingdom | Canada | Australia
Was penalty the correct decision in PSG vs Newcastle?
Newcastle fans won't want to hear it, but a penalty was the correct decision from veteran referee Szymon Marciniak, as the rule is currently written.
Neither intent nor advantage gained are considered a factor when adjudicating handball decisions under the current rule, and therefore the decision was made that such a deflection was the proper call.
"It IS a penalty, under the current interpretations of the rule," explained CBS Sports rules expert Christina Unkel on the network's postgame show in the United States. “An extended left arm that essentially creates a barrier…once that left arm is out, even though there is a deflection — that no longer is part of the interpretation and analysis — but since it’s a barrier preventing that ball from crossing in, this is an expected VAR recommendation for a handling offense that the referee is not able to see from his angle and positioning.”
Tino Livramento's arm was up and extended from his body, and thus in an "unnatural" position according to the current interpretation of the rules.
“What’s getting everyone lost because it’s in the law is the word ‘natural,’" Unkel explains. "This is a natural running motion, however the interpretation and application is trying to get less subjective and more objective, which is coming out with these harsh decisions that people in the football community do not like. It’s not on the referees, they are required to apply it like this at this point.”
"It IS a penalty."
— CBS Sports Golazo ⚽️ (@CBSSportsGolazo) November 28, 2023
Our rules expert @ChristinaUnkel explains why PSG were awarded a penalty against Newcastle. 🍿 pic.twitter.com/rt3utebW4z
MORE: A full review and breakdown of the current handball rule in European and world football
Was referee punished for VAR decision in PSG vs Newcastle?
According to Martyn Ziegler of The Times, UEFA has pulled Tomasz Kwiatkowski from his assigned duties as VAR official in Wednesday's Champions League match between Real Sociedad and Red Bull Salzburg in Spain.
No release was given by UEFA regarding the change, but Kiwatkowski had previously been assigned to work the match, until he was unceremoniously replaced by German official Marco Fritz.
Ziegler's report indicates that UEFA's move may have been related to the European governing body's recent guidelines for interpreting the handball rule.
Back in March, UEFA's football board wrote the following recommendation regarding their interpretation of the handball rule: "The Board recommends that Uefa should clarify that no handball offence should be called on a player if the ball is previously deflected from his own body and, in particular, when the ball does not go towards the goal.”
CBS rules analyst Christina Unkel, who stated after the match that the law had been applied correctly in the penalty incident, reacted to UEFA's move on social media.
"What you are seeing is European tension at its finest when it comes to interpretation," Unkel wrote on X (formerly known as Twitter). "UEFA have come out to say not handling not b/c of deflection but natural position. IFAB/FIFA have handling & train the referees around the world. Including the FIFA WC Final on the game.
"Now this puts the officials in a difficult position. Do they apply the training & instruction by FIFA/IFAB or have to change to what UEFA wants for its competitions even though against FIFA/IFAB interpretations."
Could IFAB change the handball rule?
While Newcastle fans may not have the decision to point to as an outlet for their frustration, there is another reasonable target for their ire — the handball rule.
The decision to award PSG a penalty was, by rule, the correct application of the current handball law. Yet most within the football community would consider this decision to be extremely harsh. Thus, it is the rule that could be under direct scrutiny for allowing situations like this to be judged unfairly.
CBS rules analyst Christina Unkel explained in the aftermath of the game exactly how IFAB could look to rewrite or reinterpret the rule as to avoid situations like this in the future.
“I don’t like the current interpretation in how we are required to apply it right now," Unkel said, acknowledging the frustration of other panelists such as Jamie Carragher and Micah Richards, as well as the in-studio crowd. "The football advisory board [IFAB] has specifically said in March they will provide another clarification, because we have gone too objective with the handling offense and it creates harsh decisions such as this one.”
So what does Unkel mean by her use of "subjective" vs. "objective" in regards to this rule?
VAR has attempted, in recent years, to standardize decision-making as to create a uniform set of rules to be applied across all matches — thus, her use of "objective."
However, because football is a fluid game which is difficult to adjudicate the same in every possible moment, Unkel speculates that IFAB will revert back to a more "subjective" rule which may be tougher to apply on a purely consistent basis, but will allow for an understanding that each decision in each moment is unique.
In this case, it would apply to the interpretation of a "natural position" for Tino Livramento's arm. While the rule, as currently interpreted, is applied in such a manner that any arm in such an outstretched position is deemed "unnatural" regardless of the player's motion, there may be a shift back to allowing the official to interpret what a "natural" position is given the player's specific motion.
In this case, Livramento's arm was outstretched as part of what appeared to be a normal running motion. It is nearly impossible to run without the use of one's arms in some manner, and it did not appear that Livramento gave himself an unfair advantage by the particular use of his arms. Add in that the ball deflecting off his chest gave him no chance to abide by the rules in this particular case, the referee could, under different guidance from IFAB, use his judgement to decide a penalty in this situation would not be a fair decision.