VAR review: Time and again we’ve had examples of Selhurst Park causing issues for offside decisions due to poor camera angles.
Leeds United’s Patrick Bamford controversially had a goal disallowed in November 2020 when the offside line was correctly drawn to his arm, but it looked like a defender behind was playing him onside.
In February 2023, a Pervis Estupiñán goal for Brighton & Hove Albion was incorrectly ruled out after the offside line was drawn onto the wrong defender.
And in September of this season, Leicester City boss Steve Cooper claimed an “awful human error” by the VAR was “hidden” following his side’s 2-2 draw at Palace.
Cooper claimed the wrong frame had been used to allow Mateta’s goal against his side. That was an incorrect claim, but it may have happened in Saturday’s game.
The first frame after contact on the boot should be used. But did the VAR select the frame before the touch by Marc Guéhi, who created the goal?
The players on the offside line were static, so it probably didn’t make a difference to the outcome. In fact, Mateta may have been marginally more onside in the correct frame. But as he was only onside with the tolerance level, indicated by the use of a single green line to the defender.
The offside image looks bizarre too, because the green vertical line looked to be going into the chin of a defender, when it’s actually drawn to the shoulder of the player behind him, Vitaliy Mykolenko.
All in all, it’s not ideal.
Verdict: Semi-automated VAR offside will fix the issue of camera angles and how that’s presented to fans. An animation will be produced which moves level with the offside line, which is a huge improvement. It will be used for the first time in the fifth round of the FA Cup ahead of possible introduction in the Premier League before the end of the season.
It will also cut down down the time taken, as the VAR won’t have to search for an angle to map the players. That’s especially needed in cases like this with incredibly take more than four minutes to determine.
However, it won’t remove possible issues around the selection of the correct frame, as this is still selected by the VAR.
Adidas holds the patent for how a sensor sits inside a ball to detect a kick point, and none of the major European leagues have Adidas as their ball provider.
It means that the FIFA World Cup and the UEFA Champions League can have this enhanced technology, which is more accurate, but the domestic leagues must choose the frame.
Earlier this month I asked Tony Scholes, the Premier League’s chief football officer, about the Premier League’s choice of tech. He was confident that there’s no issue not having a sensor in the ball.
“The system that we’ve adopted, we believe it to be the best system,” Scholes said. “We believe we’re going to be adopting the best, the most accurate and the most futureproof system without the need for the chip in the ball.”
Possible penalty: Challenge by Lewis-Potter on Bowen
What happened: Jarrod Bowen burst into the area in the 72nd minute, tracked by Keane Lewis-Potter. The West Ham United attacker went down and asked for a penalty, but referee Darren England wasn’t interested and it was checked by the VAR, Graham Scott.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: The two players locked arms as they ran side by side, with Bowen pulling on the Brentford player’s shirt and shorts.
Bowen then placed his right leg across Lewis-Potter, but in an attempt to gain control of the ball, and the attacker appeared to be kicked.
Verdict: It’s a classic referee’s call situation. There was holding by both players; Bowen was looking to get to the ball but was caught by Lewis-Potter.
But there was just too much going between the two players to say the actions of Lewis-Potter alone constitute a “clear and obvious” error for the VAR to get involved.
Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.
