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: The lowdown on Manchester United‘s VAR penalty against Everton, plus Manchester City‘s disallowed goal against Liverpool. Also, we look at penalty claims for Burnley, Nottingham Forest and Tottenham Hotspur.
VAR review: Everton manager Sean Dyche was far from happy, but you’ll struggle to find many outside of Goodison Park who agree with him. Yet the question of consistency comes up after a similar incident in Burnley‘s game against West Ham United resulted in no VAR intervention.
Referee Brooks felt that Martial had simulated a foul from Young to try to win a penalty but there was clear contact from Young. From Brooks’ view it would have looked more like a dive, but the other angles available to the VAR showed the foul.
Once at the monitor the referee does retain all options, so the VAR isn’t in control of the decision. The referee could have opted to stick with his decision, or give the penalty to Manchester United — or even rescind Martial’s yellow card but not award a spot kick. Brooks could also have shown Young, who had already been booked, a second yellow card.
In Europe’s major leagues a referee will stick with his own decision around five times a season. It happened four times in the Premier League last term, but only once so far in this campaign (compared to two at this stage last season.)
The monitor is supposed to create a safety net for errors made by the VAR. It’s unrealistic to think that a VAR will never make an incorrect intervention, so the screen should give the referee an opportunity to prevent his decision being incorrectly changed.
VAR review: This offside check took over three minutes but it was far closer than it initially looked.
If the attacking and defensive offside lines are touching, then it’s within the tolerance level and the benefit of the doubt is given to the striker. This is about as close as it gets for the lines not to be overlapping and Watkins was millimetres from the goal being allowed to stand. What at first looked like a poor decision from the assistant was a much tighter call.
It still took too long as VARs continue to take their time over offside decisions to guard against any errors, after the major mistake to disallow a Liverpool goal at Tottenham.
There was another long check on Pau Torres‘ equalising goal on the stroke of half-time, yet this was a clearer onside decision with a gap between the two lines.
Possible penalty: Hinshelwood foul on Hudson-Odoi
What happened: Murillo played a ball into the area in the 70th minute and Callum Hudson-Odoi appeared to be held back by Brighton & Hove Albion defender Jack Hinshelwood. Referee Anthony Taylor looked over to his assistant, but they decided there wasn’t enough to award a penalty. However the VAR, Graham Scott, began a review for a spot kick.
VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Morgan Gibbs-White.
VAR review: Just because two players may have been held doesn’t mean they are both offences. Earlier in the second half Brighton’s João Pedro was held back by Chris Wood and a penalty was awarded, so for this reason Nottingham Forest were adamant they should have a spot kick too for the holding of Hudson-Odoi.
Holding is an assessment of impact upon an opponent, and not just the act itself. Wood has his arm around the chest of Pedro, just as Marc Cucurella did on Erling Haaland for the penalty Taylor awarded to Manchester City at Chelsea before the international break. It’s not going to be overturned.
Possible offside: Trossard when scoring
What happened: Leandro Trossard thought he had given Arsenal the lead in the 42nd minute, only for a VAR review for offside.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: Last month Arsenal were left frustrated when the VAR was unable to draw the line to determine if Gordon was offside before scoring Newcastle’s winner.
The front of the ball was fully visible when Gabriel Jesus nodded it on, and the whole of Trossard’s body was in shot, so there was no issue for the VAR to draw the offside line on this incident. This wasn’t the case with Gordon’s goal.
The save by Flekken doesn’t reset the offside phase.
Possible penalty overturn: Kudus foul on Koleosho
What happened: Burnley were awarded a penalty in the 47th minute when Koleosho was brought down by Mohammed Kudus. Referee Sam Barrott had no hesitation in pointing to the spot, but would there be an overturn?
VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Jay Rodríguez.
VAR review: It’s a difficult one to spot at first from the replays, but Kudus stands on Koleosho’s right boot as he moves across the area. The Burnley player goes down in a way that would be expected from this kind of contact when moving quickly.
The penalty Sheffield United won against Wolves may have similarities, yet George Baldock appeared to collapsed before any contact. While the independent panel thought the Baldock spot kick should have been overturned by the VAR, that is unlikely to be the case with Koleosho.
VAR review: An easy overturn for the VAR, Rob Jones. The ball hit the hand of Édouard after it bounced back onto him off defender Tom Lockyer. An attacker cannot score a goal immediately after the ball touches his arm.
