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 have affected every Prem club in 2023-24 – VAR in the Premier League: Ultimate guide
In this week’s VAR Review: Should Manchester United ‘s Alejandro Garnacho have been awarded a penalty against Tottenham Hotspur ? Why did it take so long to disallow Aston Villa ‘s goal against Everton ? And should Luton Town ‘s late leveller at Burnley have been ruled out?
Possible penalty: Udogie challenge on Garnacho What happened: Alejandro Garnacho had the ball inside the Tottenham area in the 32nd minute, under pressure from Destiny Udogie . The Spurs player had an arm around Garnacho, who went to ground looking for a penalty. Referee John Brooks wasn’t interested and play continued.
VAR decision: No penalty.
That further delay was put down to the VAR checking that the offside was in the same attacking phase, yet Bailey passed the ball to Moreno who immediately scored. As the Independent Panel ruled that VAR was correct to disallow Villa’s goal against Sheffield United before Christmas, when there was a much greater question of whether a foul had taken place in the same phase, there should have been no debate. Checking of the attacking phase doesn’t explain seeing the VAR look at Lenglet’s involvement.
Offside VAR decisions in the Premier League have taken much longer since the horrendous error to mistakenly disallow Luis Díaz ‘s goal for Liverpool at Tottenham. That’s understandable, as no one wants a repeat, but this situation took it to the extremes.
At least when semi-automated offside technology is introduced next season (as we’re expecting) we will lose some of the delay, as the VAR won’t have to find the best angle, work out the kick point or place the offside lines … though it wouldn’t stop the VAR looking at another phase of the play unnecessarily.
If Bailey had been onside there would be a possible foul by Lenglet on Danjuma, with the Villa player appearing to hold back the defender to unsuccessfully deepen the offside line. We saw it in reverse last month when Mohamed Salah was pushed offside against Burnley , and ended up in the line of sight of goalkeeper James Trafford on Harvey Elliott ‘s goal; ruled out following a VAR review.
Lenglet’s actions would have been reviewable as it was within the attacking phase and had an impact on the goal being scored, though it would need to be judged as a foul rather than just a holding offence which created an onside position. Would the VAR have seen this as clear and obvious to disallow the goal? It’s difficult to be certain, especially as holding appeared to be taking place from both players.
Disallowing the goal for the foul wouldn’t have made the process quicker, as the referee would have to be sent to pitchside monitor. Getting that offside completed in a timely manner was the answer.
Possible penalty: Mykolenko, Tarkowski challenges on Diaby What happened: Aston Villa were on the attack in the 60th minute as Moussa Diaby received the ball inside the area. He checked inside Vitalii Mykolenko , who dangled out a leg, before being challenged by James Tarkowski . Referee David Coote allowed play to continue and McGinn fired wide.
VAR decision: No penalty.
