The VAR Review: Why Robertson's red card was wrong, Højlund penalty claim

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.

In this week’s VAR Review: Andrew Robertson saw red in Liverpool‘s draw against Fulham, plus there were possible red cards for Fulham pair Issa Diop and Andreas Pereira. Should Manchester United have been given a penalty against Man City for a foul on Rasmus Højlund? And Aston Villa had a spot-kick claim at Nottingham Forest.

Possible red card overturn: Robertson DOGSO on Wilson

What happened: The game was in the 16th minute when a ball was played forward toward Harry Wilson. It was intercepted by Robertson but he took a poor touch, which allowed Wilson to nip in front and take the ball — and the Fulham midfielder was then brought down. The ball ran to Raúl Jiménez, who scooped a shot over goalkeeper Alisson Becker only to see it cleared by Virgil van Dijk before it crossed the line.

At this point referee Tony Harrington stopped play to give a free kick for the foul by Robertson, who was shown a red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO). The VAR needed to check the foul, the DOGSO, and a possible offside against Wilson.

VAR decision: Red card stands.

VAR review: There are a few moving parts to this, which had similarities to Leon Bailey‘s challenge on Mohamed Salah before Darwin Núñez netted against Aston Villa: the key difference being that, unlike Núñez, Jiménez failed to score.

Referee Harrington chose to hold his whistle and allow the Mexico international to take the shot. This isn’t the same as actively playing an advantage, as that shouldn’t happen on a red-card offence. However, the referee can pause for a short time if there’s an immediate scoring chance.

If Jiménez had found the back of the net, Robertson would only have been booked as a goal was scored. As Jiménez missed, DOGSO remains active because the offence belongs to the player (Wilson), rather than Fulham as a collective. So, Liverpool were reduced to 10 men because Jiménez didn’t score.

There was no question about the foul by Robertson, and perhaps it was because of that, coupled with Wilson’s position in a central area of the pitch, which made Harrington and the on-field team sure this was a DOGSO offence.

The simple view of the incident at the time of the foul suggests a clear goal-scoring opportunity — and for that reason many will support the red card. Yet there was far more doubt once the whole picture comes into play.

VAR review: We’ve had two similar situations this season, and perhaps that has created a precedent; whether that’s the correct precedent is the real question.

In September, West Ham United‘s Crysencio Summerville was having his arm held by Chelsea defender Wesley Fofana, and the word “fleeting” entered Premier League lexicon as Stuart Attwell on VAR chose not to send the referee to the monitor. The KMI Panel voted 3-2 that it should have been given by the referee, but 4-1 against a VAR overturn.

VAR review: It was a strong challenge by Anderson, but he gets his foot to the ball so the goal isn’t likely to be ruled out on review.

Verdict: No VAR intervention.

VAR review: A close call for Mykolenko, who took a risk in the way he tried to win the ball off Partey. However, Mykolenko got a small touch on it before hooking it and taking possession. Without the first touch, which you could see the VAR checking on the replays, then it could be considered that Mykolenko had committed a foul before reaching the ball.

Verdict: Referee’s call and the evidence of a touch meant a VAR intervention wasn’t likely, but only just.

VAR review: We’ve been here before this season, at the same ground and the same end of the pitch.

Manchester City had a John Stones goal ruled out for offside on the field due to Bernardo Silva being in front of José Sá, but the VAR intervened as Silva wasn’t in the Wolverhampton Wanderers goalkeeper’s line of sight.

This is a very similar situation. Al-Hamadi is offside, but at the time Taylor heads the ball — which determines the offside phase — he is not in front of Johnstone’s view of the ball.

Verdict: Such offside decisions will remain a bugbear for Wolves fans after Max Kilman‘s goal was ruled out against West Ham United last season, the key difference being substitute Tawanda Chirewa was stood directly in front of West Ham United goalkeeper Lukasz Fabianski, and not to one side.