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: Newcastle vs. Palace | Man United vs. Arsenal | Villa vs. Man City | Everton vs. Liverpool | Brentford vs. Leeds | Forest vs. Bournemouth | Brighton vs. Leicester | Spurs vs. Fulham
VAR overturn: Cornet goal disallowed for foul by Bowen on Mendy
What happened: Maxwel Cornet thought he had equalised for West Ham United in the 90th minute, but the VAR reviewed the attacking phase for a foul by Jarrod Bowen on goalkeeper Edouard Mendy.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: One of two incidents this weekend which caused the Premier League to take an unprecedented step and ask PGMOL, the refereeing body, to explain the decisions outside of the usual post-match assessment process (discussed in detail in the next section.)
The main issue in all leagues, not just in England, has always been the point at which the VAR should become involved. Was a challenge in the buildup to a goal of sufficient influence to disallow it? Often, VARs in the Premier League have been accused of being too reluctant to intervene, now the criticism has flipped — getting involved when the challenge seems so insignificant that it has no bearing on the goal.
For this Bowen incident the VAR, who was Jarred Gillett, decided that Bowen’s contact with Mendy was enough to cause an injury and left the Chelsea goalkeeper unable to react and attempt to save Cornet’s shot. While there is no argument there was contact with Mendy as Bowen jumped over the keeper, it was minimal and shouldn’t have caused Mendy to be injured.
Gillet does not have a game as VAR this weekend but will referee Leicester vs. Aston Villa.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: There are many similarities to the disallowed West Ham goal, being an alleged foul on the goalkeeper in the buildup to the goal. The question is how the VAR, Lee Mason, came to the decision that Guaita was fouled.
There is clear evidence that Willock was pushed into Guaita by Mitchell as he the Newcastle United forward was preparing to head the ball. But Mason decided that this was normal football contact, rather than any kind of illegal action by Mitchell. It’s a view that very few will get on board with, and like the West Ham goal PGMOL has accepted this was an error.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: On any normal weekend, this decision probably wouldn’t have caused the same furore as it did. But on the back of Saturday’s decisions, it was magnified — especially as the VAR was once again Mason.
There are a few facets to this. Let’s be clear that whoever was on the received end of this challenge in the buildup would expect the goal to be disallowed. But whoever supports the attacking team would not expect the VAR to become involved, feeling it was not a clear and obvious error by the referee.
This will come down to what referee Paul Tierney told the VAR he saw. If he believed Odegaard got a touch on the ball, and it’s clear this was not the case, it’s grounds for a review. That doesn’t mean it will definitely go to the monitor, because the VAR also has to subjectively believe a foul has taken place.
VAR decision: No VAR intervention possible because the whistle had already blown to stop play.
VAR review: It’s worth mentioning that City goalkeeper Ederson only made a token effort to stop the shot from Coutinho after hearing the whistle, so we cannot consider this denied a certain goal. But how does this fit with VAR protocol?
With the delayed flag, the assistant is told they must always flag when they feel there has been an offside when the attacking move comes to an end. If they don’t flag, they haven’t identified an offside. But if they spotted what they assess to be offside, they must always flag.
It’s all about when an attacking move has ended. The unique factor in the Coutinho incident is he had a shot and scored. We see similar incidents across a weekend, but we would never notice them as play simply stops. In Brighton vs. Leicester on Sunday, Timothy Castagne came back from an offside position to the edge of the box and was preparing to shoot when the referee stopped the play due to the assistant’s flag.
There’s no question that Coutinho was onside; assistants will make mistakes. So let’s take a look at the VAR protocol to explain why the flag was raised.
When Ollie Watkins plays the ball (the direction of the pass is irrelevant for offside, a common misconception), Coutinho is in front of the penalty spot.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed for offside.
VAR review: There is no question that Coady was offside in front of the ball, and not by a small margin either. His foot is over the blue line which is drawn to the ball, let alone his upper body as he leans forward.
Any deflection off the toe of James Milner doesn’t reset the offside phase. As with Karim Benzema‘s disallowed goal for Real Madrid against Liverpool in the Champions League final, a blocking action from a defensive player is not considered to be a “deliberate play” of the ball. It was without doubt the correct decision to rule it out.
VAR overturn: Penalty awarded for a foul by Sinisterra on Toney
What happened: Ivan Toney moved in on goal when he was challenged by Luis Sinisterra. Referee Robert Jones indicated no foul and play should continue.
VAR decision: Penalty and a yellow card to Sinisterra.
VAR review: Referee Jones thought Sinisterra had got some of the ball when challenging Toney from behind with replays showing that wasn’t the case, resulting in the correct review for the penalty.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: This was clearly very frustrating for Leeds boss Jesse Marsch, who was sent off for his protests.
The was an initial shirt pull on Summerville by Hickey, which was on the blind side of the referee and could not be assessed by the VAR as it was outside the area.
But when Summerville reached the edge of the box there was an arm on the shoulder by Hickey, as well as contact between the players on the lower half of the body. There was a question as to the foul contact actually being inside the area, though this never came into the thinking of the VAR, David Coote. It was decided that Jones’ view that this was a coming together with minimal contact.
Leeds fans will struggle to accept that, especially as they already had the earlier VAR decision go against them.
VAR decision: Goal allowed, no offside.
VAR review: The assistant thought the long pass had been flicked on by Toney, but the ball actually came off Robin Koch meaning Mbeumo couldn’t be offside. The correct decision was to allow the goal.
VAR decision: Penalty should be rescinded, rejected at the monitor by the referee.
VAR review: For the first time since February 2021, and only the sixth time in more than three years of VAR in the Premier League, the referee chose to ignore the advice of the VAR (Graham Scott) and stick by his own decision. It’s something we desperately need to see happen more often to give more confidence to the system, proving that decisions remain in the hands of the referee and not by edict from the VAR room.
The Premier League’s aim for a high bar effectively means a VAR decision should not go to the monitor unless it’s a definite error, but as we saw from the incidents at Chelsea and Newcastle this weekend it simply isn’t the case that the VAR is immune from mistakes. It also assumes there could never be a subjective disagreement between the referee and the VAR. It’s almost inconceivable that not once last season the referee was sent to the monitor and didn’t think he got the decision right.
Oliver gave the penalty because he believed Kelly turns his body to make it bigger with his arms after the shot by Williams. After viewing the replays he saw nothing to change that opinion, and hopefully we see more examples of this.
