A few factors conspired against the VAR, most notably that SAOT was out of action. Then England’s communication headset stopped working, meaning the referee could only hear the assistant VAR. They had to swap over for the check to continue.
But these are only excuses and, given the tech issues, assessing Domínguez’s impact first could have moved it all along so much quicker. If you decide Domínguez hasn’t committed an offence, the tech failure is immaterial. In any case, it seemed quite obvious that Domínguez’s boot was in advance of the last West Ham defender.
As Domínguez didn’t touch the ball, the VAR has to judge a subjective offence. Did the Forest player challenge an opponent, or make an obvious action which could have impacted a West Ham player? It’s the second part which is important, as Domínguez ducked slightly as the ball went past him.
The only possible offence was a slight duck by Nicolás Domínguez under the flight of the ball. Shaun Botterill/Getty Images That did create a dilemma for the VAR, as it was a clear movement which could effect how an opposition player might judge the flight of the ball. Crucially, there was no defender directly behind Domínguez, it was Milenkovic. As such, which opponent could Domínguez possibly be impacting? The VAR took at least two minutes looking at this aspect, and it should have been much quicker.
Forest know all about this, too. In January, Milenkovic had a goal disallowed against Southampton through a VAR review, for a subjective offside against Chris Wood . The striker had challenged for the ball from an offside position, except he challenged a teammate (Milenkovic) and not an opponent.
The Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel voted 4-1 that it was an incorrect intervention, and the goal should have stood. The panel noted that “Wood comes from an offside position but doesn’t impact any opponent’s ability to play or challenge for the ball.”
Verdict: If Domínguez had been next to a West Ham defender and/or impacting their ability to play the ball, the goal should have been ruled out. But there wasn’t, and it took far too long to come to that conclusion, obviously affected by the tech issues both with SAOT and the headset.
The KMI Panel’s verdict on the Milenkovic goal vs. Southampton shows that we shouldn’t expect a VAR intervention. And we waited six minutes and 14 seconds to find that out.
Chris Wood (11) was wrongly ruled to have impacted an opponent on Nikola Milenkovic’s goal against Southampton. Premier League Possible red card: Violent conduct by Morato What happened: The game was 13 minutes into added time when players from the two sides squared up to each other. During the melee, there was a question of violent conduct by Morato in an altercation with Jarrod Bowen , it was checked by the VAR.
VAR decision: No red card.
Morato grabs hold of Jarrod Bowen’s shirt. BBC VAR review: On first replay, it looked like Morato had caught Bowen in the face with a clenched fist, and it might even have been a punch of sorts.
On closer inspection, Morato had grabbed a chunk of the West Ham forward’s shirt and pushed forward with his hand, rather than it being a violent push in the face.
Verdict: A yellow card for adopting an aggressive attitude is an acceptable disciplinary outcome.
Possible penalty: Handball by Højlund What happened: Chelsea were on the attack in the 28th minute when the ball dropped for Enzo Fernández inside the area. The Argentina international attempted a volley, and his shot hit the on-rushing Rasmus Højlund . Chelsea players appealed for a penalty for handball, but referee Chris Kavanagh wasn’t interested and gave a free kick to Manchester United for a foul by Fernández on Noussair Mazraoui . It was checked by the VAR, Craig Pawson.
VAR decision: No penalty.
Rasmus Højlund blocks a shot from Enzo Fernandez with the ball hitting his hand. NBC VAR review: The ball hit the hand of Højlund, but it wasn’t extended away from his body in a way that would be described as unexpected for his movement.
Players aren’t told to have their arms behind their backs when they are closing down. And the ball hitting a player’s arm after a shot on goal doesn’t automatically mean it should be a penalty either.
Throughout this season, handball has only been penalised when the arm is fully out, or raised above the head. Man United defender Matthijs de Ligt provided the perfect example of the kind of incident that should be penalised, when the VAR stepped in to advise a spot kick in the game against Liverpool earlier this season.
Matthijs de Ligt had his arm fully raised when he conceded a VAR penalty. NBC Verdict: There have been only nine handball penalties all season in the Premier League. The position of the arm and close proximity of the shot means there should be no chance of a VAR intervention for a spot kick.
Possible penalty overturn: Challenge by Onana on George What happened: Chelsea were awarded a penalty in the 61st minute when Tyrique George went to ground from a challenge by Manchester United goalkeeper André Onana . Referee Kavanagh pointed to the spot and it was checked by the VAR.
VAR decision: Penalty cancelled.
André Onana gets a hand to the ball after rushing out to challenge Tyrique George. Liverpool FC/Liverpool FC via Getty Images VAR review: Man United’s players were furious with the Chelsea attacker, clearly believing he had dived to win the spot kick.
Onana got a hand onto the ball before a small amount of contact on George’s leg with his elbow.
Verdict: In the FA Cup final on Saturday, Manchester City were awarded a spot kick when Bernardo Silva went down inside the area under a challenge from Tyrick Mitchell . Referee Stuart Attwell pointed to the spot for a penalty, and that was upheld by the VAR.
There were some similarities, in that Silva started to go to ground before any contact, and there may have been a very slight touch from the Crystal Palace defender.
Bernardo Silva goes to ground and is awarded a spot kick for the challenge by Tyrick Mitchell. Jacques Feeney/Offside/Offside via Getty Images So, does the clearer play of the ball by Onana make that an obvious overturn? And does the fact that any touch by Mitchell is inconsequential support the on-field call of penalty at Wembley? You can understand why supporters should feel that both should be overturned.
Earlier this month, Newcastle’s Joe Willock was booked for simulation against Brighton & Hove Albion after a penalty was cancelled on a VAR review. In that case, there was no contact by the defender, Jan Paul van Hecke , and Willock moved into him. In George’s case, there was natural contact by Onana on the striker, so it shouldn’t be seen as a dive.
Possible red card: DOGSO by Kraft What happened: Gabriel Martinelli tried to turn substitute Emil Krafth in the 64th minute, but was pulled down by the Newcastle United defender. Referee Simon Hooper produced a yellow card and the VAR, Michael Salisbury, checked for a possible red.
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: It’s questionable whether any Newcastle defender would have got across to challenge Martinelli, while goalkeeper Nick Pope was backtracking into his goal.
The important consideration for the VAR was the position of players at the time of the foul, and the general direction of the ball.
Martinelli was in a wide position, and the ball was running down the edge of the penalty area, rather than taking the attacker directly to goal.
Verdict: While it can be argued that Martinelli would only need one touch to take the ball toward the Newcastle goal, that element, and that it could create the chance for a defender to get across, makes this a possible goal-scoring opportunity rather than an obvious one. A yellow card was an acceptable disciplinary outcome.
Possible penalty / violent conduct: Burn, Kiwior and the final whistle What happened: Newcastle won a corner nearly two minutes after the allocated five minutes of stoppage time had elapsed. Goalkeeper David Raya caught the ball, and there was then a melee between the players, with Dan Burn and Jakub Kiwior squaring up. It was checked by the VAR.
VAR decision: No violent conduct.
VAR review: There wasn’t anything between the players for the VAR to get involved in, either for a red card or a penalty, but why did the referee simply blow the final whistle all of a sudden?
Back in September 2020, there was controversy when Manchester United were awarded a penalty through VAR at Brighton … after the referee had ended the game. It was a valid intervention, because the handball offence happened before the referee had blown; United won the game 3-2. Referee Chris Kavanagh was unaware of the possible handball offence, so ended the game.
VAR protocol asks the referee to delay blowing the final whistle if a VAR check is ongoing, and only end it when told it’s complete. That’s what Hooper was waiting for, so two minutes and 40 seconds later Hooper simply blew for time. If there had been a penalty within the clash of the players, a spot kick would have been awarded as the last act of the game.
Possible penalty overturn: Foul by Andersen on Schade / DOGSO red What happened: Brentford were awarded a penalty in the 25th minute when Kevin Schade went down claiming he had been clipped by Fulham defender Joachim Andersen . Referee Jarred Gillett pointed to the penalty spot and it was checked by the VAR, John Brooks.
VAR decision: Penalty stands, Bryan Mbeumo shot saved by Bernd Leno .
VAR review: Andersen clipped Schade as he was running ahead, caused the Brentford player to trip.
This wouldn’t be seen as denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) as the angle was too tight on the shot. And as it’s only stopping a promising attack, Andersen wasn’t cautioned due to the award of the spot kick.
Verdict: While this probably wasn’t going to be awarded through VAR, there’s no likelihood it would have been overturned if given by the referee.
Possible penalty retake: Encroaching What happened: After Mbeumo’s penalty had been saved by Fulham goalkeeper Leno, there was a VAR check for a possible retake for encroaching — but not by the goalkeeper, by his defender Andersen.
VAR decision: No retake.
VAR review: Keane Lewis-Potter was the first player to the rebound, and he scuffed his attempted follow up.
However, Andersen had his foot on the line when Mbeumo took the penalty, which means he was encroaching.
The law was changed last summer so that a retake is only enforced if encroachment has a direct impact on the outcome. I.e. Did Anderson influence Lewis-Potter’s miskick?
Verdict: It would have been a harsh retake and many would feel VAR would be too forensic in doing so. That said, with the more liberal application of encroachment it could equally be argued that Anderson wasn’t close enough to affect the outcome.
A retake was missed by the VAR earlier this season in Southampton vs. Aston Villa . Marco Asensio ‘s spot kick was saved by Aaron Ramsdale , and Jack Stephens was first to the rebound. But the Saints defender was inside the area when the penalty was taken, and when he cleared there was an Villa attacker behind him who could have scored. Brentford were given a retake at Crystal Palace earlier this campaign in similar circumstances, and Villa should have got a second shot too.
Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.
