Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?
After every 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 Brentford have been awarded a penalty against Liverpool? Why did Newcastle United get a spot kick when the player was offside? Also, how Nottingham Forest will be angry with another decision that went against them.
Possible penalty: Robertson challenge on Toney
What happened: Liverpool led 3-0 in the 72nd minute when Brentford‘s Sergio Reguilón attempted a cross in from the left. It was flicked on by Liverpool defender Ibrahima Konaté, with the ball dropping to Ivan Toney inside the area. The striker tried to control the ball on his chest, but he was knocked over by Andy Robertson from behind. Referee Michael Oliver signalled there would be no penalty, which was checked by the VAR, David Coote.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: It was judged as a coming together rather than a foul, with Toney moving into the defender’s space as much as any possible foul contact. Yet the nature of Robertson’s challenge should have been the important factor and led to a VAR review.
Toney did move backwards and to his left to chest the ball, and if Robertson had gone shoulder-to-shoulder with the challenge then no penalty would have been an acceptable outcome. Yet Robertson effectively jumps into the back of Toney, knocking him to the ground. Rather than it being a fair upper-body challenge, it’s a foul and Robertson can have no control over the way he knocks the striker over.
VAR review: When Kieran Trippier delivers the ball into the area, Fabian Schär is being pulled back by Adam Smith. Schär was having his shirt pulled for a sustained amount of time, and if holding starts outside the area and continues into it then a penalty should be awarded.
Schär was shown to be in an offside position, yet it’s perfectly legitimate in law for a penalty to be awarded. Make sense?
In simple terms the law states that “it is not an offence to be in an offside position” — ergo, it’s what an offside player does once the phase is active which determines whether there’s an offence. So, a player in an offside position can be fouled as long as they don’t commit an offside offence before being fouled.
The logic is that a defender shouldn’t have carte blanche to foul an opponent simply because they are stood offside. Yet it’s contradictory in this specific situation, because the fouled player is being prevented from committing an offside offence.
VAR review: When does a challenge in the area cross the necessary threshold for a VAR penalty? This provides a good case study and how different considerations can affect judgement.
You can understand how the referee missed the contact, as Cornet doesn’t make a challenge for the ball or the opponent. Yet the West Ham United player stands on the left foot of Williams, causing him to stumble and go to ground.
The VAR will very rarely get involved where a defender hasn’t attempted a challenge, usually leaving it on-field. Which begs the question of when unintended contact has the consequence to bring the VAR into action.
Is it a penalty if the referee gives it? Definitely. Is it a situation for the VAR? It should be. Yet the Premier League increasingly wants its VARs to only get involved in the most obvious of fouls, rather than those that could cause any debate.
VAR review: One of the quickest VAR reviews we’re ever likely to see, with Attwell sent to the pitchside monitor just 15 seconds after he had cautioned Holgate.
Perhaps Attwell was unsighted as a player ran across him at the point of the contact. It was high with force, endangered the safety of an opponent and is exactly the kind of clear missed red card that VAR is here to catch.
VAR review: The VAR quickly determined that while there was some contact between Osborn and Verbruggen, there wasn’t enough for a foul. So for a few seconds at least, Sheffield United had been given the goal.
Yet the VAR then had to check a possible offside against Osborn, and the “deliberate play” law came back into focus.
VAR review: It was a very tight decision, within millimetres of the attacking and defensive lines touching — which would have made Moreno onside by the built-in tolerance level.
There was some confusion among Villa supporters, who believed it was drawn to Leon Bailey or Moreno’s elbow. The plot point is the right edge of the red vertical line, which goes to the upper arm of Moreno, with which he would legally be able to play the ball..
This manual plotting of players to create a 3D graphic on a 2D image causes inconsistencies, and it’s one reason the tolerance level exists to give the benefit to the attackers. Semi-automated offside should help to improve this, if the Premier League clubs vote to introduce it for next season.
Possible penalty: Challenge by Diop on Watkins
What happened: Bailey played Watkins into the area in the 65th minute, with the striker going down under a challenge from Issa Diop. The ball ran through to Fulham goalkeeper Bernd Leno, and referee Lewis Smith, taking charge of his first Premier League games, indicated play should continue.
VAR decision: No penalty.
