Key Incidents Panel Split On Maeda Penalty Denial

Key Incidents Panel Split On Maeda Penalty DenialWednesday, 21st Oct 2026 12:32

The Premier League’s Key Match Incidents Panel was split on whether Town should have been awarded a second-half penalty during their 2-1 victory over Fulham at Portman Road a fortnight ago.

In the 75th minute, Daizen Maeda got round the outside of Ryan Sessegnon on the right and looked to be tripped as he broke into the area. Referee Lewis Smith waved away the protests and VAR upheld his decision.

The Key Match Incidents Panel upheld the referee’s decision by a margin of 3-2 and VAR not intervening by 4-1, explaining: “The referee’s call of no penalty was supported, 3-2. The majority felt the contact from Sessegnon was just below the threshold to award a penalty.

“Two panellists deemed the on-field decision incorrect on the basis that Daizen gets in front of the defender who then makes contact with his legs. The VAR decision to not intervene was deemed correct, 4-1.”

The panel also upheld decisions not to award penalties to Fulham for handball claims against Sasa Lukic in the 28th minute and Issa Diop on 53, both 5-0 regarding the referee’s verdict and VAR not intervening.

Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.

Was Ryan Sessegnon on the panel?

Yes Sir_Bob, and his mum, and her dog.

What is the point of these panels? Once the full time whistle goes that's it, game over.

What a waste of time. It’s not going to change anything either way is it. Just an excuse to give more people a job who are not needed in the game

I have to say I completely agree with PGMOL verdict.

What they need to clarify next time which would stop the mass confusion, is they forgot to mention that if Maeda was wearing a full Man United kit, the penalty would of be rewarded with Segnesson being sent off with 120 hour unpaid community service.

In all seriousness, I genuinely think it's one of those, could of gone either way, could of made arguments for both sides. Footballing incident, only because we won in the end ;)

Of course they're split. The to$$as will never Town anything. Corrupt as F***

Just shows they only really pay attention to the big teams that make all the noise.

Definite penalty, how they agree with the referee, beggars belief.

RetroBlue: against City VAR disallowed a City goal and later gave us a penalty - at City's home ground.

So your claims aren't exactly founded on anything.

This after the event analysis of decisions doesn't help anyone and just serves to undermine the referee and their decision making. He made a judgement call in the moment - he needs to be sure to give a penalty - that should be the end of it.

What pointless nonsense, especially as they thought that Maguire hadn't handled the ball before Greaves's own goal. Referees have always made mistakes, but poring over them with VAR & panels only seems to help illustrate the high degree of subjectivity in many refereeing decisions.

People getting paid good money to make irrelevant statements! Does it change anything? No.

This is so down the middle. If it's given, I don't think anyone would argue (other than Fulham). On that basis, it should have been awarded. That said, I don't think VAR can overturn because its a very miss-able incident at that speed and positioning, so not clear and obvious (if i'm applying that correctly). But then I think they should empower linesmen more to help and support these decisions, they don't get involved in penalty calls anymore and rely on VAR, this is from observation rather than official sources!

Predictable responses, don't think I agree re Maeda, and disrespectful to the lad himself. As with Fatawu, it should be a yellow for simulation or a pen ! To give neither should not be allowed. If it had been given there is no way it would have been overturned. No question there remains an element of unconscious bias toward the more familiar Premier League teams, that has been proven before, and VAR does nothing but reinforce that. Still, we should be grateful these decisions have not changed our points total....yet. Am trusting that our Management team are making representations to the Premier League as we did last time we came up, which preceded a decent run funny enough.

I don’t get the decision even now. Maeda got in front, There was clear contact which at that speed was almost certainly going to trip him up. Which is what happened. Refs should also in my view take into account a players track record for diving etc. Maeda has no such track record. As to VAR not intervening. It’s ridiculous they didn’t ask Ref to view on the console.

In other cases VAR does intervene so why not this one? Eg Haaland’s third where the guy who crossed was a yard offside; that was clear and obvious and so VAR correctly intervened. Ditto Johnson’s offside interference of Walton at Everton. If those can be reviewed why not Maeda’s trip. It’s all so inconsistent.

Pointless having these panels, unless they award us extra points! There isn't even the tiniest question in my mind that it was a penalty, and it was more than enough to send any player down. Seems I'm not the only one who needs a new pair of specs!

Pointless panel, but worrying that some of them don't think it was a pen... it was stonewall. If Leif does that against one of the big 6, it's given every day of the week...

"Key match incidents panel"...(rolls eyes)

Another bunch of clowns stealing a living.

hi armchaircritic58 - not picking on you but I am intrigued how the Maeda situation it stonewall with a slight foot collision, but Haaland pulling on the shoulders (more than once) on Ouatarra is out of scope of being a foul? I don’t disagree on the Maeda incident, just curious on your interpretation for the Haaland situation. How can one be a foul and the other not?

Naa: let's see how many decisions VAR and the officials give us over the whole seadon shall we. We get little credit in the game at this level....or do you think we do??

I see others comments about this so called JOKE of a "panel" dont get downvotes...

Are they using these panels to train AI refs ?

Jugsy, don't mind if you did pick on me, I'm old enough, ( some might say ugly enough ) to take it :). It's all in the manner of friendly messaging. My interpretation of the Haaland/Outarra " incident " is that yes there was bodily contact but not enough to warrant any action. I don't recall Town players making a great issue of it. I'm not saying I'm right, it's just my interpretation. Makes me glad I'm not an official. Mind you I'd be the oldest ever!