The video assistant referee raises controversy every week in the English Premier League, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?
After each weekend, we take a look at the major events to examine and explain the process in relation to the VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.
– How VAR decisions affected each Prem club in 2023-24
– VAR in the Premier League: the ultimate guide
In this week’s VAR review: Should Robert Sanchez have received a penalty for his challenge on Gabriel Jesus? In addition to handball decisions involving William Saliba, Michael Keane and Scott McTominay.
Possible penalty kick: Sanchez on Jesus
What happened: Arsenal received a free kick from the right in the 60th minute. Martin Odegaard It was delivered into the area and Takehiro Tomiyasu headed the ball over the crossbar. However, goalkeeper Robert Sanchez rushed out and collided with Gabriel Jesus as he attempted to hit the volley. Referee Chris Kavanagh restarted play with a goal kick for Chelsea.
Video Assistant Referee’s decision: No penalty.
Video assistant referee review: Arsenal fans are understood to have said the challenge is no different to the one Manchester United goalkeeper Andre Onana faces with Wolverhampton Wanderers striker Sasa Kalajidzic. This incident came in the final moments of the opening match of the season at Old Trafford, as the Video Assistant Referee failed to intervene and award a penalty kick. This led to PGMOL admitting that a foul had occurred and a penalty should have been awarded.
But there are differences that certainly mean that PGMOL will not react as it did to Onana, by excluding the referee and VAR from the next round of matches.
The Video Assistant Referee (VAR) must decide whether the goalkeeper is making a genuine attempt to play the ball. This, of course, does not mean that the goalkeeper can play in a reckless manner – which is what many will feel Sanchez did and could have easily done. Unlike Onana, it is a more borderline position, in terms of how the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) is applied when a clear and obvious foul occurs. Sanchez collides with a group of players, including Jesus and his teammates, trying to clear the ball.
There was also some grabbing of Tomiyasu’s shirt by Thiago Silva, but it certainly wasn’t enough to get a penalty.
As Onana initially tried to play the ball, the Manchester United goalkeeper realized he had no chance of winning the ball and pulled Kalajdzic to the ground with both arms. It was an additional action to commit a foul on an opponent after failing to win a volley.
Each week, the VAR Review includes several incidents that have sparked huge reactions on social media and among pundits. When these incidents are assessed by an independent Major Conformity Incident Panel within the framework of the regulations, few are judged to be faults. Indeed, in the last week before the international break there were a series of controversial situations – including red cards for Pascal Gross and Mateo Kovacic, and a penalty against Matt Doherty – but no VAR fouls were recorded.
Possible red card: Palmer’s challenge on Jesus
What happened: Cole Palmer was booked in the eighth minute after Jesus caught a late challenge. But should the referee have shown the red card? VAR started to conduct a check.
Video Assistant Referee’s decision: No red card.
Video assistant referee review: This was clearly not a good tackle from the Chelsea midfielder but it certainly does not amount to a VAR tackle for a red card.
Contact was low, not above the ankle, and without excessive force. The yellow card was an acceptable disciplinary outcome and would certainly be upheld by the Independent Major Match Incidents Commission. In fact, the panel said that Kovacic’s tackle on Odegaard was not a clear and obvious foul until the VAR intervened with a red card – although referee Michael Oliver should have made the decision on the pitch, whether for the initial red card or a potential second yellow. Card.
Possible penalty: Handball from Saliba
What happened: Raheem Sterling sent a cross in the 11th minute, as Mykhailo Modric tried to head the ball away on goal under pressure from William Saliba. Chelsea players called for a penalty kick when the ball hit an Arsenal defender, but referee Kavanagh continued playing.
Video Assistant Referee’s decision: Penalty kick scored by Palmer.
Video assistant referee review: It’s a case where the intended application of the law conflicts with what fans feel is fair. But we now have many examples to show how such decisions are judged.
The basic rule is simple: if the arm is fully extended away from the body, there is a very high probability that a penalty kick will be awarded.
While the expected position of the arms for a player’s movement and proximity are important, these are merely mitigating factors that will be substituted if the arm is too far from the body, creating an obvious barrier.
It is expected that Saliba’s arm will be in this position when jumping, but at the same time he considers that he risks extending the arm completely.
We can compare it to the penalty not awarded against West Ham United’s James Ward-Prowse at Luton Town: while his arm was raised it was not fully extended or raised above the head, which is why he escaped a VAR review.
Then there’s Nicholas Jackson, who also avoided a penalty review on the opening weekend of the season against Liverpool, largely because the ball fell onto his hand from close range. So we’re back to being close? Partially, but also Jackson’s arm was close to his body rather than fully extended.
Compare that to the penalty kick Wolves missed against Luton, when Joao Gomez blocked the ball and the ball deflected into his arm, which rose above his head. Despite deflecting the ball away from his body, the arm height negated that mitigating factor.
As highlighted in August’s VAR review, there are always likely to be borderline decisions, and such was the case with Cristian Romero’s potential handball for Tottenham Hotspur against Manchester United. While Romero’s arm was far from his body, he was saved by not extending it fully – unlike Saliba and Gomez.
The committee has not yet ruled that any VAR decision on a defensive handball decision has been invalid this season.
Possible penalty kick: Foul by Patterson on Diaz
What happened: Luis Diaz wanted a penalty in the 70th minute when he felt he was caught Nathan Patterson. Referee Craig Pawson was not concerned with the penalty kick.
Video Assistant Referee’s decision: No penalty.
Video assistant referee review: This remains consistent with VAR reviews for penalties this season. While there may have been a small amount of contact from Patterson as he slid in to block a potential cross from Diaz, it did not appear to have been enough to send him into the air.
While we have seen penalties awarded by the referee due to a small amount of contact – see Dominik Szoboszlai falling to the ground under a challenge from Bournemouth’s Joe Rothwell – this is not usually the case from VAR.
Possible penalty kick: Handball by Kane
What happened: Diaz attempted a cross into the penalty area, and the ball hit Michael Keane’s outstretched arm. Referee Pawson chose not to award the penalty but the Video Assistant Referee, David Coote (VAR), quickly intervened.Watch here.)
Video Assistant Referee’s decision: Penalty kick scored by Mohamed Salah.
Video assistant referee review: An easy decision for VAR, one that should have been made by the team on the pitch without the need of a video assistant.
The ball may have hit Kane from close range, but as was the case with Saliba, his arm was fully extended away from the body. It’s a clear offense on Kane’s part and will always be punished with a penalty.
Possible penalty kick: Handball by McTominay
What happened: Sheffield United were awarded a penalty in the 31st minute when Scott McTominay was adjudged to have handled a cross from James McAtee. Video Assistant Referee, John Brooks, confirmed the correctness of referee Michael Oliver’s decision.
Video Assistant Referee’s decision: Penalty kick scored by Oliver McBurnie.
Video assistant referee review: While McTominay’s arm was close to his body, there was clear movement towards the ball. This makes it a deliberate act and a punishment.
If the ball hits McTominay’s arm as he tries to pull it into his body, it will not be a penalty.
Possible offside coup: Ajer on Maupay’s goal
What happened: Brentford thought they took the lead in the seventh minute. Brian Mbeumu took the free-kick, Nathan Collins helped it back across the area and Neal Maupay headed it home. However, the flag was immediately raised for offside.
Video Assistant Referee’s decision: No goal.
Video assistant referee review: Much of the confusion around this decision came from an error on the big screen inside the stadium. It appeared that the offside decision was against Collins, but in fact it was Kristoffer Agger who was flagged.
When Mbeumo plays the ball, Ager blocks Burnley’s Lyle Foster and the assistant saw this prevent the opposition from challenging the ball from an offside position. It is doubtful that the VAR intervened in disallowing the goal, but it is also a personally acceptable decision.
The assistant does not need to feel that Foster will win the ball or even decide to make a challenge, he is merely judging that the player in an offside position has affected his ability to do so.
Some parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.
