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
JUMP TO: Arsenal 1-1 Brentford | Palace 1-1 Brighton | West Ham 1-1 Chelsea | Man City 3-1 Villa | Leicester 4-1 Spurs | Leeds 0-2 Man Utd
VAR’s worst weekend?
In the last 12 months, PGMOL has begun implementing the Elite Refereeing Performance Plan to improve standards, with a large number of coaches and support staff brought in. That included appointing Howard Webb as the new chief of refereeing.
Webb enjoyed a smooth start to the job, but as mentioned in the VAR Review a few weeks ago there was never a magic wand to fix the underlying issues. It’s going to take time to transform the organisation, both in terms of referees on the pitch and in the VAR hub, but weekends as poor as this have to be avoided.
In September, the Premier League took the unprecedented step of asking PGMOL to explain VAR decisions to disallow goals for West Ham United at Chelsea, and Newcastle United against Crystal Palace. But it’s one thing making mistakes over the subjective calls in those games, and another thing entirely when the VAR is unable to effectively use technology to make an objective offside decision.
That said, the general picture isn’t as bad as some may think, as only a fraction of the situations supporters believe are incorrect officially get classed as mistakes. For instance, the Marcus Rashford offside situation in the Manchester derby wasn’t judged to be an error by the independent panel.
The mistakes which potentially cost Arsenal two points at home to Brentford, and Brighton & Hove Albion a possible victory at rivals Palace, were wholly avoidable and suggest a lack of concentration and application.
Missing an offside against a player who has created a goal, or placing the offside line to the wrong player, have quite rightly been described by PGMOL as “significant errors in the VAR process.” Webb is determined to be more open about errors, so the Premier League won’t need to publicly demand a response like it did earlier in the season. “Human error,” as PGMOL called it, will be unavoidable but has to be limited through improved performance.
Webb has moved swiftly to react. John Brooks, the VAR for Palace-Brighton, was due to be in the hub for Liverpool vs. Everton on Monday night and Arsenal vs. Manchester City on Wednesday evening and has been replaced for both matches.
The fate of Lee Mason and Neil Swarbrick will be known on Tuesday, when the Premier League appointments for the weekend are announced.
A major problem is that many of these errors are being made by officials whose sole job is VAR.
Mason, who failed to disallow the Brentford goal, was the Premier League’s first full-time VAR and is into his second season, but has made six confirmed mistakes this campaign. He was responsible for two errors that weekend in September.
VAR review: The VAR, Lee Mason didn’t forget to draw the lines, it’s far more nuanced than that — but it doesn’t change the fact this was a huge error.
There are three possible situations — one foul and two offside.
1. Did Pinnock foul Gabriel?
There’s no doubt that Pinnock is in contact with his opponent, but there wasn’t enough in it to be considered a blocking action for a foul.
2. Was Pinnock interfering with an opponent from an offside position?
This is the first key question, and where it essentially began to fall down for Mason. Did Pinnock impact Arsenal defender Gabriel from an offside position, preventing him from closing down Toney at the far post on the initial play of the free kick?
When the attacking player is in an offside position, the burden of proof for interference when touching an opponent is far lower than for a foul. You don’t have to consider Gabriel would have won the ball, only that his ability to challenge for the ball has been affected.
VAR review: The second major error of the weekend, with the VAR, John Brooks, and the Hawk-Eye technology operator failing to apply the offside line correctly. It was applied to the feet of the third-last defender, which made Estupinan offside.
As with Norgaard we cannot be certain without the lines, but PGMOL has admitted this was an error and had the lines been drawn to the correct defender, Marc Guehi, Estupinan would have been onside.
Brooks and the operator managed to do half the job correctly, but somehow they managed to mix up two players stood close to each other and get the plotting of the offside line wrong.
Using the image below, we can show where it went wrong.
Red circle to the arm of Guehi and Tomkins
This vertical line is actually correct. Though it stops around the elbow of James Tomkins, following the vertical line up would stop on the correct part of Guehi’s upper arm. So, the first part of the process was being done correctly. Where it went wrong is the line was then plotted to Tomkins, rather than Guehi.
Red square to the feet of Tomkins
As the vertical line has been stopped on Tomkins’ arm, part way to where it should be on Guehi, the VAR and the tech operator have confused themselves. It ultimately leads to the error plotting the pitch position to create the defensive line.
The vertical line is effectively correct, but wrongly plotted to the feet of Tomkins; it means Guehi would be around 7-feet tall and causes an offside line which is too far up the pitch.
VAR review: When is the arm supporting the body, and when is it being placed in a position to block the path of the ball? This is the whole crux of the decision; the former isn’t a handball offence, the latter is.
The judgement of the VAR, Swarbrick, was that Soucek was putting his arm to the ground to break his fall, and therefore there’s no grounds to overturn the decision of the referee, Craig Pawson.
VAR review: We have seen this kind of penalty more regularly over the last couple of seasons, where an attacker has his back leg clipped when a defender is running behind him, causing the attacker to trip over himself.
Even though there has been no actual challenge, the defender remains in charge of where they are running; if the attacker is impeded, even accidentally, it will not be a wrong decision by the referee to award an penalty kick. The VAR will not intervene to advise an overturn if he finds contact to cause the trip — as long as that contact hasn’t been initiated.
VAR review: Bentancur was shown to be onside by the technology, but many fans questioned why it was even checked. After the ball deflected off Ben Davies, Victor Kristiansen attempted a clearance and it fell to Bentancur.
When a player plays the ball close to go it’s technically considered a save, and not a “deliberate play.” The defender is effectively acting like a goalkeeper, and at attempt to stop a ball going into the goal will not reset the phase. If the technology had shown Bentancur was in an offside position, the goal would have been disallowed.
Possible onside: Weghorst goal
What happened: Deep into added time, Wout Weghorst had the ball in the back of the net but the flag went up for offside.
VAR decision: No goal.
