The Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel has backed the decision to award Manchester United a goal against Ipswich, despite the controversy over a Harry Maguire handball, although one member of the panel felt the use of the arm was deliberate.

In United’s 5-2 win on 30 August, the ball seemed to hit Maguire’s hand as he controlled it just outside the 18-yard box. His follow-up effort was going wide before it deflected into the net off Ipswich defender Jacob Greaves.

Referee Craig Pawson and VAR Jarred Gillett judged the handball to be accidental. Under the current laws, because Maguire did not score directly from his attempt, the goal was allowed to stand.

The independent panel, made up of three former players or coaches, one Premier League official and one representative from Pro Ref, is releasing its verdicts on major match-week decisions for the first time this season.

The decision to let Manchester United’s second goal stand after the apparent Harry Maguire handball has now been endorsed by the expert panel.

In notes published on Wednesday morning, the panel said: "Maguire’s arms are within his bodyline, meaning that the contact with his right arm was accidental and not a punishable handball offence given that Maguire was not the goal scorer.

"The shot was clearly off-target and then deflected in via the defender for a clear own goal. The panel supported the referee’s call to award the goal, 4:1, with one panellist considering the handball to be deliberate."

After the match, the Premier League’s Match Centre account explained: "The referee’s call of goal for Manchester United was checked and confirmed by VAR – with it deemed that Maguire was not the immediate goalscorer after an accidental handball."

It also included a VAR explanation: "It’s an own goal and the accidental handball is not punishable, so we recommend you award the goal."

Elsewhere, the panel found that VAR should have intervened to award Arsenal a penalty in their match at Aston Villa on 31 August for Ian Maatsen’s challenge on Bruno Guimaraes. While no foul was given during the game, the panel unanimously agreed that a penalty should have been awarded, either on the field or after a review.

"Clear contact was made on the attacker’s standing leg and Maatsen made no contact with the ball," the panel notes said.

"They also felt that VAR should have intervened as the non-penalty award was a clear and obvious error."

The panel also considered Maatsen’s "reckless" challenge serious enough to merit a second yellow card.

On Nottingham Forest’s penalty at Liverpool on 29 August for Alisson Becker’s challenge on Neco Williams, the panel disagreed 3-2 with the on-field decision. However, members believed VAR was correct not to get involved because the incident did not meet the clear and obvious error threshold.

A 4-1 majority also disagreed with the decision not to award Brentford a penalty at Leeds on the same date after Jayden Bogle’s challenge on Kevin Schade. Once again, the panel felt the threshold for VAR to overturn the original call had not been met.

Overall, 21 Key Match Incidents from the second round of matches were reviewed. The accuracy of initial on-field decisions was 76 per cent, which increased to 90 per cent after VAR interventions.