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: Brighton 1-2 Villa | Spurs 4-3 Leeds | Man City 1-2 Brentford | Liverpool 3-1 Southampton | West Ham 0-2 Leicester | Newcastle 1-0 Chelsea | Forest 1-0 Palace
Possible penalty: Saliba challenge on Guedes
What happened: In the seventh minute with the game goalless, Wolves broke and Nelson Semedo played the ball through to Goncalo Guedes who went down inside the area up against Arsenal defender William Saliba. Referee Stuart Attwell indicated no penalty, then stopped the play for a delayed offside flag.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: The first of two very similar incidents, with attackers getting to the ball ahead of a defender, and the defender then kicking the attacker. But this incident has a few additional layers to it.
The assistant delayed his flag and allowed the attacking phase to play out, which allows the VAR to review anything that happened up to the point when the referee stopped play if the offside flag was incorrect.
First, the VAR (Mike Dean) had a check of the offside to see if there is a possibility the attacker was onside. At this stage he doesn’t draw the offside lines, Dean is making a quick assessment to see if there is a need to review the possible penalty. As it looked like Guedes could be onside, Dean then reviews the challenge.
VAR decision: No penalty
VAR review: This is very similar in nature to Guedes-Saliba. Digne goes to make a clearance, but March comes in and gets a touch on the ball first. The Aston Villa defender then kicks March after the ball has gone. Again, this is the VAR, Jarred Gillett, making a judgement on two players coming together rather than there being a foul — but it should have been a penalty.
Unlike with the Wolves incident, Gillett did appear to give it proper consideration and a full review. It’s easy to see why Kavanagh may not judge this as a penalty, because the way the ball moves gives the impression the Villa player got to it first (see West Ham vs. Leicester for more on this.)
This then comes down to the replay angles being used by the VAR. The one from the referee’s viewpoint is less clear, but the VAR has the advantage of the reverse view which clearly shows it should have been a penalty.
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: The VAR, Paul Tierney, judged that referee Michael Salisbury hadn’t made a clear and obvious error in allowing play to continue, and thus Kane to score.
That Meslier ended up on the floor inside the goal when Kane scored is in itself immaterial — what matters is how the goalkeeper got there.
Meslier got a hand to the ball, but he was prevented from making a proper clearance by Lenglet. This is always an important consideration, along with whether the collision was incidental or a foul. Most fans would expect this to be ruled out for a foul on the keeper.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Man City players and supporters appealed for a penalty as soon as the ball hit Henry’s arm. Replays immediately showed that it hit the Brentford player’s arm, which was raised and created a barrier to the cross.
For the VAR, David Coote, this is about having proof of the handball being inside the area (the line belongs to the box, on the line would be a penalty.) We saw this last weekend when Arsenal wanted a penalty for handball against Chelsea’s Cucurella, but the VAR could not say for certain the handball was on the line.
VAR decision: No penalty
VAR review: City might have been lucky last weekend to get a fairly soft penalty decision given on the field that the VAR wouldn’t overturn, when De Bruyne was fouled by Fulham‘s Antonee Robinson, and we saw VAR decision-making in reverse here.
There was definitely a small amount of contact from Henry and De Bruyne, but it wasn’t significant enough to warrant a VAR intervention. It’s the kind of soft VAR penalty decision that the referees’ body have been trying to cut out.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Both Salah and Bella-Kotchap had each other’s arm locked, so the VAR is not going to get involved to award a penalty in a situation like this.
Guidance issued at the start of the season made it clear that if two players are involved in simultaneous and similar holding actions, play should be allowed to continue.
VAR decision: Penalty, missed by Youri Tielemans.
VAR review: One of only two VAR interventions over the weekend, and most definitely a correct one from Chris Kavanagh. Because the ball moved to the right, Gillett believed it had been played by Dawson. But the replays clearly showed that Dawson caught Daka’s foot and the ball deflected off to the right, giving the impression to the referee that the defender had won the ball.
As with the Saliba incident, Dawson (who was booked) wouldn’t be shown a red card for denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) because he made an attempt to play the ball with his foot. Guidance indicates that only in very extreme circumstances would a player be shown a red card for DOGSO inside the area when the challenge has been made by the foot.
VAR decision: Goal.
VAR review: A very tight decision, and one which required the “benefit of the doubt” provided by the attacking and defensive offside lines touching for the goal to count.
When this tolerance level is used to rule a player is onside, a single green line is drawn to the defensive player.
Information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL was used in this story.
