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: Should Nottingham Forest have been given a penalty for handball by Manchester United defender Harry Maguire? Plus West Ham United‘s penalty against Arsenal, Wolverhampton Wanderers‘ claims for a spot kick against Brentford and more drama at Tottenham Hotspur.
Possible penalty: Handball by Maguire
What happened: Nottingham Forest were awarded a corner in the 19th minute when the game was goalless. The delivery from Renan Lodi dropped into the six-yard box on to a cluster of players and after it fell to the ground Harry Maguire cleared his lines for a throw-in. Forest players appealed for a penalty, and referee Simon Hooper signalled there was a VAR check underway from Andy Madley.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Partey fails to control the ball and it pops up onto Rice’s chest, which enables him to move forward and create the opportunity for the penalty. But did Rice handle the ball before passing the ball to Paqueta?
It’s far from certain the ball even hit Rice’s arm. The angles are inconclusive, but even if it did that wouldn’t be an automatic reason to cancel the penalty and award a free kick to Arsenal. Rice would be considered to have his arm in a natural position for his movement, so the handball would have to be a deliberate act to be an offence. West Ham scored a goal against Fulham in the first half of the season when the ball hit the arm of Antonio in the buildup to a goal. On that occasion the VAR wrongly chose not to intervene, but there was a clear movement of the arm by Antonio to control the ball.
VAR review: Wolves have been unhappy with decisions throughout the season and can again consider themselves unfortunate. Tierney had a decent view and showed he knew Toti got to the ball by awarding a goal kick rather than a corner; the VAR, Stuart Attwell, backed the referee’s judgement that it was a coming together rather than a foul.
VAR review: Kane made no obvious action to play or move out of the way of the ball, so the only possible offence is “preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision.”
A goalkeeper’s ability to successfully save a shot isn’t a consideration, only whether they have been impacted from being able to play the ball. Did Kane’s presence have an effect on Neto’s decision-making?
