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 in the Premier League: Ultimate guide
In this week’s VAR Review: Unpacking all the drama as Brighton & Hove Albion lost 2-1 at Tottenham Hotspur, plus a soft penalty for Brentford against Newcastle United and a possible handball in the buildup to West Ham United‘s winning goal at Fulham.
Possible penalty: Hojbjerg foul on Mitoma
What happened: In the 70th minute with the score 1-1, Brighton & Hove Albion‘s Kaoru Mitoma attempted to control a dropping ball inside the area following a corner routine. He appeared to be caught by Pierre-Emile Hojbjerg and went to ground, but referee Stuart Attwell ignored the penalty appeals (watch here.)
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: One of Webb’s key beliefs is that if the VAR looks at an incident too many times, then the chances of it being a clear and obvious error are small. And with the high bar for intervention, a blatant penalty offence shouldn’t need micro-analysing — yet that’s exactly what happened.
England watched the incident 23 times from various angles, and in total the review took three minutes from the challenge to Kavanagh signalling the penalty kick. Almost five minutes had elapsed by the time Toney’s spot kick hit the back of the net. It’s difficult to see what level of contact there was, but it certainly wasn’t significant.
VAR review: It was unlucky for Wilson, but an automatic decision to rule out the goal as soon as the touch on the arm has been identified. This provides a good comparison with the Mitoma situation in that the ball hit Wilson’s arm lower down and was a more obvious handball offence.
Though the ball comes off Toney after touching Wilson’s arm, before the striker puts it in the net, this is still classed as immediately scoring a goal after the ball has touched an attacker’s arm.
VAR review: It was groundhog day for Fulham. When the two sides met at the London Stadium in October, both Gianluca Scamacca and Michail Antonio scored goals after the ball had touched their arms in a game the Hammers won 3-1. The independent panel ruled both goals should have been disallowed by the VAR in that game, Michael Salisbury.
Coufal tries to play the ball inside, it rebounds off the thigh of defender Antonee Robinson and back onto the hand of the West Ham player. Coufal then crosses the ball into the area and eventually Reed puts past his own keeper. There were no appeals for handball from any Fulham player and the assistant has the ideal view.
As Coufal wasn’t the goal scorer, the handball has to be a deliberate act, or his arm must be in a position which isn’t expected for his movement. He doesn’t move his arm towards the ball, and while many will feel he has benefitted from the handball to help create the goal that isn’t a consideration in law.
VAR review: A certain penalty, even if the challenge from Holding was more clumsy than anything else. He caught Jota on the back of the leg, causing the Liverpool forward to go to ground.
With this contact, there is no prospect of a VAR intervention.
VAR review: The “deliberate play” law makes an appearance again in the VAR Review, but this time in a more logical way.
Seamus Coleman had the chance to control and clear the long ball which was played forward to Rashford; the Everton player made a mess of it, the ball slipped through his feet and it ran through to Rashford, who created the goal.
Coleman had plenty of time to watch the ball as it came from distance, his view was unobscured and he didn’t have to stretch to control it. Therefore, it was a “deliberate play” and the offside phase is reset, so there was no need to check Rashford’s position.
VAR review: This shows the difference between an attacker initiating contact to win a penalty, or using contact to do so. With the first, a player places their leg out of their natural stride to give the impression of foul contact from an opposing player.
The De Bruyne penalty falls into the second category. Walker-Peters slides in with a rash challenge after De Bruyne gets his toe to the ball, and while you can argue the Belgium international could have avoided the contact, he didn’t need to and essentially used the tackle to earn the penalty. As there was clear contact from Walker-Peters, and he didn’t get a touch on the ball, there will be no VAR intervention.
