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: Was the VAR right to disallow Arsenal‘s late “winner” from Kai Havertz against Aston Villa? Should Brighton midfielder Carlos Baleba have been sent off against Manchester United? And why did Nottingham Forest have a goal ruled out for offside against Southampton?
Possible handball: Havertz when scoring
What happened: With game tied at 2-2, Arsenal scored what they thought was a dramatic, 87th-minute winner at home to Aston Villa when Mikel Merino saw his shot deflect into the back of the net off Kai Havertz. Villa’s Boubacar Kamara, who was right in line with Merino’s shot, appealed for handball and while the Arsenal players celebrated it was looked at by the VAR, John Brooks.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: At first this seemed to be a regular deflection off Havertz, wrong-footing Villa goalkeeper Emiliano Martínez to give Arsenal a dramatic winner. Yet it soon became clear there was doubt about the goal, and the ball might have come off the Germany international’s arm.
The two-tier handball law, which means a defender wouldn’t concede a penalty in exactly the same scenario, does cause confusion. An attacker cannot score a goal if the ball touches his hand or arm, even if it’s tucked into the body. Yet if comes off a defender in the same way, it can’t be a spot kick because the player hasn’t made their body unnaturally bigger.
The law for the attacker is very simple, though: you cannot score a goal with your arm, whether the touch is accidental, or if it touched another part of your body first. It’s a binary part of the law and doesn’t require any kind of interpretation (this is why the referee didn’t need to go to the monitor.) If the ball hits an attacker’s arm and goes into the goal, it’s always a free kick to the defending team.
VAR review: Unlike some of the more marginal ball-out-of-play situations we’ve seen in recent times, this was a straightforward decision.
Verdict: A very easy one for the VAR as the ball was in view on the goal-line camera — which wasn’t the case for Newcastle’s controversial goal against Arsenal last season.
Play didn’t restart with the goalkeeper, but rather at the point the incident happened. As the ball came off a Newcastle player last, it was a corner to Bournemouth.
Possible penalty: Branthwaite challenge on Son
What happened: Son Heung-Min had possession inside the Everton penalty area in the 27th minute, and looked to work the ball back around the box. He went to ground under pressure from behind by Jarrad Branthwaite, but referee Darren England wasn’t interested in penalty appeals.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: If this had been given as a penalty by the referee, then it wouldn’t have been overturned.
But there’s too much doubt for a VAR review, specifically around whether Son had slowed his forward momentum to cause Branthwaite to go into the back of him.
Verdict: Without more of a clear challenge from the defender to cause the Tottenham Hotspur player to go down, the VAR, John Brooks, wasn’t going to get involved.
Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.
