Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?
After each weekend we take a look at the major incidents, to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.
– How VAR decisions affected every Prem club in 2022-23
– VAR’s wildest moments: Alisson’s two red cards in one game
– VAR in the Premier League: Ultimate guide
JUMP TO: West Ham 3-1 Fulham | Everton 1-2 Man United | Newcastle 5-1 Brentford | Palace 2-1 Leeds
Possible offside: Saka on Martinelli goal
What happened: Arsenal took the lead in the first minute through Gabriel Martinelli, but there was a review for offside in the buildup against Bukayo Saka (watch here.)
VAR decision: Goal stands
VAR review: A first, it seems, as the VAR was unable to make a full calibrated check on Saka’s offside position.
The VAR set the kick-point on Ben White, who played the pass to Saka, and then looked to use one of the other cameras, which are all time-synced, to apply the offside lines. Technology provider Hawk-Eye has five cameras around the pitch which can be used to place the offside lines, but Saka was out of shot on all of them at the point the ball was played by White.
VAR decision: No penalty
VAR review: Arm position alone hasn’t been the determining factor in a handball offence since the law was changed in the summer of 2021. A series of considerations need to be taken into account by the referee and the VAR, most importantly the position of a player’s arm relative to their body movement, proximity to the ball and the speed at which is has been played. It means a player is not automatically determined to have committed a handball offence just by having their arm away from their body.
Of course, added layers of subjectivity mean less consistency — while handball situations may seem the same it’s still about how it’s interpreted in the opinion of the referee, and indeed the VAR.
There’s no doubt the ball hits Gabriel’s arm, and that his arm is away from the body, but the VAR decided that it was hit at point-blank range and the defender had no chance to react. That said, we have come to expect this should be a penalty this season. Even if you can make a case for Gabriel using his arm to balance as he comes to a stop, it is still a long way from the body and creates a barrier.
Possible offside: Nunez in buildup to goal
What happened: Liverpool equalised in the 34th minute, with a question of offside earlier in the move by goal scorer Darwin Nunez.
VAR decision: Goal stands
VAR review: Nunez was offside when the ball was first played forward by Alexander-Arnold, but crucially he doesn’t become involved in that phase of play.
VAR decision: Penalty stands
VAR review: This again comes down to the weight of the on-field decision. Once the VAR has identified contact on Jesus by Thiago, and Oliver says he saw that Jesus was kicked on his ankle, there is very little place for the VAR to go.
It is without doubt a very soft penalty, and it’s highly unlikely the VAR would intervene and advise a penalty if Oliver hadn’t awarded it.
VAR decision: Goal stands
VAR review: Scamacca was shown to be onside, but the controversy is over the possible handball.
When overturning a goal for accidental attacking handball, the VAR is looking for definitive proof of the offence. That means there will be occasions when some will feel that evidence is present, but the VAR might not agree the threshold has been reached; this is one of those occasions.
Last week, Barcelona were denied an injury-time penalty against Inter Milan in the Champions League when the ball appeared to hit the raised arm of defender Denzel Dumfries — as with the Scamacca case, the VAR decided he couldn’t be sure there was a handball, yet many watching felt it should have been a spot kick.
This differs from the penalty Everton weren’t awarded against Manchester City last season, when the VAR failed to identify a handball by Rodri. In that case, the VAR had many angles which showed the ball had hit the City player on the arm, yet the VAR incorrectly decided there wasn’t the evidence the ball had hit the arm low enough for it to be an offence. In the Scamacca case, it was a question of whether the ball brushed the striker’s fingers at all as it dropped to the ground (there is no evidence of it hitting the elbow following the bounce.)
VAR decision: Goal stands
VAR review: This comes down to the deeper guidance around accidental attacking handball, and the specific requirement that a player “scores in the opponents’ goal immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental.” It means there can be an accidental handball by a striker before he scores, as long as he doesn’t score immediately.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed
VAR review: While Antonio’s goal against Fulham was allowed to count, Rashford’s wasn’t. So what was the difference?
This handball happened in a similar position to Antonio’s, but Rashford didn’t have an initial shot saved by Jordan Pickford; he tried to take the ball around the goalkeeper (who got a touch on the ball) before slotting the ball into the net.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed
VAR review: Even though Toney didn’t touch the ball, that he moved his foot out of the way to allow it to run through to Mbeumo is enough to create the offside offence.
By feigning to play the ball, Toney has to impact the decision-making of defender Fabian Schar, who is behind the striker.
