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.

In this week’s VAR Review: Should Arsenal‘s penalty against West Ham United have been canceled? What happened with Sunderland‘s overturned spot kick at Manchester United? And why didn’t Alexander Isak win a penalty for Liverpool at Chelsea?

Possible penalty overturn: Position of foul by Diouf on Timber

What happened: Arsenal were awarded a penalty in the 67th minute when Jurriën Timber raced onto a pass and was brought down on the edge of the area by El Hadji Malick Diouf. Referee John Brooks pointed to the spot, and it was checked by the VAR, Michael Oliver.

VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Bukayo Saka.

VAR review: There’s no doubt this was a foul by Diouf, who clambered over the back of the Arsenal player. The query was about where it took place, with both players falling to the ground inside the area.

The referee and the VAR are looking for the point of contact that causes the foul. So it is possible for contact to begin outside the area and the foul to happen inside. This isn’t a foul continuing into the area, it’s the foul itself happening within it. It’s different than holding, which is the only offense that can start outside the box, continue into it, and be a penalty.

In December 2020, Southampton were awarded a VAR penalty against Brighton & Hove Albion when there was initial contact between Solly March and Kyle Walker-Peters outside the area, but the foul was judged to have taken place inside (watch here).

So in Saturday’s case, the VAR agreed that the first contact between Diouf and Timber outside the box wasn’t a foul, and it came on the line or inside.

Verdict: This would be considered a factual overturn, so the VAR alone would make the call and the referee wouldn’t be sent to the monitor. Yet other than situations determined by semi-automated offside technology, there’s no decision which is truly factual. The VAR is still looking at TV evidence and making a subjective judgement: Where did the foul take place? Was it handball by the goal scorer? Did the ball go out of play? The fact that different VARs could reach opposing judgements makes it subjective.

– Lindop, Olley: After dramatic Chelsea win, are Liverpool in crisis?
– Dawson: Pressure eases on Amorim — but for how long?
– Ogden: Hollywood derby gives us gritty realism rather than fairy tale

There’s a very strong argument that Diouf does foul Timber before the two players reach the box. The West Ham player is starting to climb over his opponent before they get to the line, and it really should have been a free kick … but it’s tight.

Subjective or objective? Oliver opted to leave the decision on the field, but would he have advised a penalty if a free kick had been given? It’s highly unlikely.

Possible goal: Offside check on Saka

What happened: Saka thought he had fired Arsenal into the lead in the 24th minute when he ran onto a pass over the top by Declan Rice. After the ball ended up in the net, the assistant referee raised the offside flag and the goal was disallowed.

VAR decision: No goal.

VAR review: As the ball was floated into the area, it bounced off the head of Diouf and dropped perfectly for Saka.

There was no question about Saka’s offside position — but did he commit an offside offence? Or should the offside phase have been canceled by the touch off Diouf?

Verdict: There are two considerations for the VAR. First, did Diouf make a “deliberate play” (meaning controlled) that would reset Saka’s offside position? As the ball simply landed on the West Ham player’s head, rather than him actually attempting to head it, this wasn’t a “deliberate play,” so Saka remains offside

Even if it was a “deliberate play,” Saka is so close to the defender that it would have been valid to consider whether the Arsenal forward had impacted or influenced him into playing the ball, so it’s highly unlikely the VAR would have stepped in.

Correct on-field decision.

Possible penalty: Handball by Mavropanos

What happened: Saka helped the ball into the area at the start of the second half, and it touched the arm of West Ham defender Konstantinos Mavropanos. Play continued, but was there a case for a penalty?

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: The VAR determined that this was just part of Mavropanos’ running action, and the ball inadvertently touched his arm rather than the defender making his body unnaturally bigger, or making any deliberate action.

Verdict: The Premier League’s more-lenient application of the handball law gives far more consideration for how a player is naturally moving. There’s a chance this would be given as a spot kick in one of the other major European leagues, but it won’t be sent to review in England.

Possible penalty overturn: Challenge by Sesko on Hume

What happened: Sunderland delivered a long throw into the area in first-half stoppage time. As Trai Hume looked to win the ball, he went to ground under a high-foot challenge from Man United’s Benjamin Sesko. Referee Stuart Attwell allowed play to continue, and when the ball went out of play for a corner, the assistant advised that a penalty should be awarded. It was checked by the VAR, Neil Davies.

VAR decision: Penalty canceled.

VAR review: Last week we discussed how contact was required for a penalty kick to be awarded for a high boot. Chelsea‘s Malo Gusto escaped after the VAR determined he couldn’t be certain that he touched Yankuba Minteh. This was that situation in reverse.

Sesko tried to get to the ball ahead of Hume, and raised a boot — with the video evidence clear that there was no contact.

Verdict: It was a confusing situation at first, because of the delay between the incident and the penalty being awarded, and it may incorrectly have appeared that the VAR was advising a spot kick. But this was undoubtedly a correct intervention to cancel the penalty.

Usually, an overturned spot kick results in a restart with a dropped ball to the goalkeeper, because it has stayed in play. But when the ball has very clearly gone out of play before a penalty is given, the game restarts normally — in this case with a corner to Sunderland.

There’s an argument that the restart should have been an indirect free kick to Sunderland inside the area, as that’s how playing in a dangerous manner (no contact) should be dealt with. But this is never given in favor of the attacking team in the box.

Possible penalty: Challenge by Lammens and Fernandes on Traoré

What happened: Bertrand Traoré was booked for simulation in the 57th minute when he went to ground when trying to get past goalkeeper Senne Lammens and midfielder Bruno Fernandes on the edge of the box.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: There was glancing contact between Fernandes and Traoré, which took place just outside the area so the VAR wouldn’t be able to get involved.

The VAR could have considered a red card against Fernandes for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, as Traore could have got to the ball inside the area with Lammens out of the game. However, there was enough doubt that there was enough in the contact to be a foul, and with Diogo Dalot mopping up the loose ball, it couldn’t be certain the Sunderland player would take control.

Verdict: While Traoré went down a little theatrically, he was probably unfortunate to pick up a yellow card, as he was nudged by the United captain as he tried to get past him.

Possible penalty: Challenge by Szoboszlai on Garnacho

What happened: Alejandro Garnacho moved into the penalty area in the 39th minute and went to ground under pressure from Dominik Szoboszlai. The Chelsea winger looked at Anthony Taylor asking for a penalty, but the referee waved away the claims. It was looked at by the VAR, Craig Pawson.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: There was a hand on the back of Garnacho, but the Argentina international went to ground too easily when he felt that contact.

Verdict: Definitely not enough in this for the VAR to get involved.

Possible penalty: Challenge by James on Isak

What happened: Alexander Isak ran onto a ball through the center in the 73rd minute and went down after being hit in the head by a flailing arm from Reece James. No penalty was awarded, so the VAR had a look.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: While Isak was caught in the face, this only came after the striker had pulled James back by his shirt.

Verdict: Arne Slot was annoyed by this decision, because Liverpool had conceded a penalty at Galatasaray in the Champions League on Tuesday when Szoboszlai caught Baris Alper Yilmaz in the face inside the area.

But there are two important differences: as ever, the crucial one being that the Galatasaray penalty was given by the on-field referee, and not through VAR. Also, there wasn’t any contact by Yilmaz on Szoboszlai that could be judged to have led to the touch on the head.

That’s not to say the Galatasaray penalty wasn’t exceptionally soft, but it doesn’t mean James should also be penalized, and definitely not through a VAR intervention.

Possible penalty: Challenge by Diop on Evanilson

What happened: James Hill lofted a ball into the area in the 54th minute, with Evanilson going to ground under a challenge from Issa Diop. Referee Simon Hooper wasn’t interested in the penalty appeals, so it was checked by the VAR, John Brooks.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: The VAR decided that while there was contact by Diop on the heel of Evanilson, it was accidental, so it didn’t reach the threshold for an intervention.

Verdict: Cast your mind back to the start of last season and the VAR penalty awarded to Fulham against Nottingham Forest, when Murillo stood on the heal of Andreas Pereira with the ball in the vicinity. The VAR? John Brooks.

There’s no doubt that the contact from Diop prevented Evanilson from being able to play the ball, and using Pereira as precedent, there’s a clear case for a VAR penalty. Consistency would say the same VAR might reach the same conclusion in both incidents.

The Premier League’s Key Match Incidents Panel supported the Pereira VAR intervention 5-0, though it did also note there was some contact on the attacker’s back. This perhaps isn’t quite as clear, but Diop was fortunate.

Possible red card: Violent conduct by Flemming on Buendía

What happened: Zian Flemming took control of the ball in the third minute of stoppage time, holding off Emiliano Buendía before then having his progress blocked. Buendía went down holding his face but referee Andrew Kitchen, in his third Premier League game, allowed play to continue. It was checked by the VAR, Michael Oliver, for a possible red card.

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR review: Flemming had his arm raised when Buendía came in from his blind side, with the Burnley player positioned to protect the space rather than throwing an elbow.

Verdict: This should at least have been a free kick to Aston Villa, and there’s an argument it should have been a yellow card. But there was no force or brutality in the way Flemming tried to hold off the Aston Villa player, and no deliberate act.

Two seasons ago, Fulham‘s João Palhinha escaped a red card after he caught Brighton’s Pascal Groß on the head with an arm when trying to keep possession. In that case, there was a clear movement into the opponent, with the KMI Panel voting 3-2 that it was a missed VAR intervention for a red card.

The Flemming incident doesn’t fall into the same category, so this won’t be seen as an error.

Possible penalty: Morato challenge on Burn

What happened: Newcastle United won a corner in the 54th minute; as it was delivered into the box, Dan Burn went down under pressure from Morato. Referee Peter Bankes allowed play to continue, and VAR Chris Kavanagh checked it out.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: Initially the two players were involved in mutual holding before Burn broke free. Morato didn’t seem to be interested in challenging for the ball, only stopping Burn from doing so. But the referee decided there wasn’t enough in it to give a penalty.

Verdict: Judging when holding goes from normal football contact to an offense is always a case of weighing up a variety of factors. Clear non-footballing actions, like dragging an opponent down by his shirt, are the only obvious examples.

There was a strong case for a penalty for a holding offense after Burn tried to get away from Morato, who can consider himself very fortunate.

The closest example is probably West Ham’s Mateus Fernandes holding back Tottenham Hotspur‘s Micky van de Ven last month. That wasn’t given as a spot kick, which the KMI Panel supported on a split 3-2 vote for both on-field and VAR judgements. But due to the non-footballing nature of the challenge, this could go down as a missed intervention.

Possible red card: Violent conduct by Uche on Tarkowski

What happened: The game was deep into added time when there was a VAR check for a possible punch by Christantus Uche on James Tarkowski. Should there have been a red card?

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR review: Quite a strange situation, because while Uche did appear to take a jab at Tarkowski, it seemed very light, and it was unclear whether there was contact. There doesn’t have to be contact for violent conduct, as “strikes or attempts to strike” is covered within the laws, but there does still need to be a level of brutality involved.

Verdict: Would there have been a different outcome had Tarkowski fallen to the ground? Possibly, but the fact that the Everton player barely had any reaction should be a decent indicator that there was very little in this.

A bizarre move by Uche, but there was not enough in it for violent conduct.