The Premier League's Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel has ruled that both the referee and video assistant referee (VAR) were correct not to award a penalty to Manchester United's Amad Diallo in their draw at Bournemouth last month.
Amad went down inside the area after Bournemouth defender Adrien Truffert appeared to place two hands on him. Referee Stuart Attwell waved away the penalty appeals.
The home side immediately broke up the other end of the pitch and scored through Ryan Christie in the 67th minute.
It was a key moment, from United potentially taking a 2-0 lead to being pegged back to 1-1 at Vitality Stadium on 20 March.
Truffert's challenge was checked and cleared by the VAR, Craig Pawson, who decided there was no clear and obvious error.
The KMI Panel produced a split 3:2 vote against a spot-kick being awarded on the field.
It was noted that "whilst Truffert runs a risk, the contact made was not impactful and therefore below the high threshold for a foul".
Two panellists said the action was "non-footballing and a penalty should have been awarded".
However, the KMI Panel unanimously supported the non-VAR intervention, stating that it was "in keeping with the high threshold for VAR overturns".
'It's as obvious as you can get'
To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
This video can not be played
'The referee got it wrong' - pundits disagree on Amad penalty claim
United were furious after the game, and indicated they would make a formal complaint to referees' body Professional Game Match Officials (PGMO).
The Red Devils' issue was around consistency, with two other penalties awarded in the game for holding offences.
Manager Michael Carrick described the decisions as "baffling", confused that Attwell's decision did not match an earlier spot-kick given to his side for a pull by Alex Jimenez on Matheus Cunha.
"So the Cunha one, he gives, the second one on Amad he doesn't, which is, I think, almost identical, really, two hands on someone in the box, and they go over and they're in control of the ball," Carrick said.
"Massive moment and I don't understand how you can give one and not the other - it's crazy. It's as obvious as you can get.
"It's clear, if that's what he believes is a penalty to start with then the second one has to be."
Match of the Day pundit Alan Shearer agreed and said: "You should have given a penalty when you gave two like that. How on earth do you not give another one."
The KMI Panel backed the Cunha penalty 5:0, stating that "Jimenez clearly pulls the shirt of Cunha in a non-footballing manner".
Bompastor angry with VAR after McCabe hair pull
Why Sky's TV picks are causing a massive headache for match-going fans
Who uses academy players most in Premier League - and does it matter?
Like the VAR, the KMI Panel makes judgements on individual incidents rather than comparing similar situations in one game as a measure of consistency.
Harry Maguire's pull on Evanilson, which led to a penalty and a red card for the Manchester United defender, was backed 4:1.
Junior Kroupi then scored from the spot, earning a 2-2 draw for Bournemouth.
A 23rd-minute challenge between the same players, which did not result in a penalty to Bournemouth, was unanimously supported as no foul.
One on-field error was recorded in Gameweek 31.
It was voted 3:2 that Chelsea should have been awarded a penalty against Everton, though the Toffees were then leading 3-0 in the 85th minute.
Everton defender James Tarkowski had "physically disengaged" from Wesley Fofana, before swinging "an arm into the chest".
No VAR intervention was supported 3:2.
Get news, insight and fan views on your Premier League team
All your football quizzes in one place
DW Deutsch 
ESPN 
