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: AFC Bournemouth won at Arsenal thanks to a controversial goal from Evanilson, but should it have been ruled out for handball? Plus, a possible red card for Wolves defender Rayan Aït-Nouri and double penalty woe for Newcastle United.
Possible disallowed goal: Handball by Evanilson
What happened: Evanilson put Bournemouth up 21 up in the 75th minute when he bundled the ball home after Marcus Tavernier had helped on a corner delivery to the far post. While the Bournemouth players celebrated, a possible handball by the goal scorer was checked by the VAR, Michael Salisbury.
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: One thing tends to determine this kind of situation: luck.
Luck of the available camera angles, luck of the position of the players and, probably most importantly, luck of who is in the video assistant chair. It’s down to the judgement of the VAR, whether they feel they have the definitive proof.
In general, there was agreement among pundits that there wasn’t categorical evidence to disallow the goal; that you couldn’t be absolutely certain the ball had touched Evanilson’s arm, that it might have gone into the net off his side.
The balance of probabilities is that the ball came off Evanilson’s thigh, onto his elbow, and then into the goal. Yet the VAR isn’t supposed to make interventions on probabilities, only certainties.
We see these “factual” judgements on a regular basis, ones which are actually subjective and based on the opinion of an individual VAR. They’re not truly “factual,” like offside position, because it’s possible for a VAR to come to different conclusions based upon what they believe they have seen.
Arsenal fans have been here before. In January, Kai Havertz thought he had scored a dramatic, 87th-minute winner at home to Aston Villa when Mikel Merino saw his shot deflect into the net off the Germany international. The goal was given on the field, but the VAR, John Brooks, felt he had sufficient evidence that the ball had come off Havertz’s arm, rather than his hip, and it was ruled out.
Arsenal fans questioned that intervention, and many will feel a failure to disallow the Evanilson goal shows inconsistency — with both calls going against them in the VAR room.
Bournemouth have been on the wrong end, too. At the start of the season, they had a stoppage-time winner wrongly disallowed at home to Newcastle United when the VAR, Tim Robinson, felt the ball had come off Dango Ouattara’s arm rather than his shoulder. And after Evanilson’s incorrect VAR red card against Manchester United last weekend — he could only play at Arsenal due to a successful appeal — they will feel they were due a decision.
Verdict: During the live coverage, it was difficult to be sure if there was a touch on the arm. Certainly the pixelated zoom on one angle couldn’t be relied upon.
That said, later analysis using the camera behind the goal to the side did suggest there was the evidence of a touch of the arm — the question is how long should the VAR spend on this before deciding to leave the decision on the field? If he’s not sure, he has to leave it. And if he keeps having to look, he’s likely to come to the conclusion that he cannot be certain.
It’s understandable why the VAR didn’t get involved. Handball? Very probably. Definitive? Maybe not for VAR in the immediate time frame. Arsenal unlucky? They would argue that’s been the tale of their season.
It’s worth noting that even if the VAR had decided there was a handball, there was a very strong case for a penalty for holding. Martin Ødegaard, who was marking Evanilson, had turned his back and had no interest in challenging for the ball, only preventing the attacker from getting to it. The ball touching the arm of Evanilson would only be an offense leading to a goal, so the referee could have been sent to the screen to give a spot kick for Ødegaard’s actions. It would also have been a red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
Possible red card: Serious foul play by Aït-Nouri
What happened: Rayan Aït-Nouri had possession in midfield in the 72nd minute. As he turned and rolled his foot over the top of the ball, he realized he was being challenged by Bernardo Silva and, after stretching out a leg and making contact with the opponent, the Wolves player conceded a free kick. Referee Peter Bankes took no disciplinary action but it was checked by the VAR, Paul Tierney. (watch here)
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: Aït-Nouri avoided a VAR red card as the VAR determined that the contact with Silva was accidental — this means it was part of a regular footballing action — and lacked force, but there’s a clear case for a red card.
When Aït-Nouri tries to spin past the challenge of Silva, he appears to straighten his left leg — is that to make contact with the Manchester City player, or is it to protect the ball? Only he will know the answer.
If you think it’s the former, then it has to be a red card for endangering the safety of an opponent by challenging in a way which could potentially cause injury.
Accidental contact on its own wouldn’t admonish Aït-Nouri if force was involved, because intent isn’t in the law. He did slow down after initially running with the ball, and contact was with the front of the studs rather than the full flush of the boot. But there did appear to be a buckle of Silva’s leg, something the VAR looks for when judging serious foul play, and it was on the shin.
Verdict: It has not been a great season for Premier League referees and serious foul play, with four red cards overturned on appeal. That includes the VAR intervention for the dismissal of Bournemouth’s Evanilson, with Bankes the referee.
There have been red cards missed, too. Last month, Tierney was on VAR and failed to recommend that Everton’s James Tarkowski be sent off in the Merseyside derby.
The way Aït-Nouri changed his body position and stretched out his leg doesn’t look good and, for me, a red card would have been a better outcome.
It looks far worse in slow motion. In fact, at normal speed it’s quite difficult to see the exact nature of the challenge.
The VAR can’t tell the referee that Aït-Nouri should have been booked. But there appears to be enough disagreement about this tackle that it won’t go down as a missed red card, that the “referee’s call” should stand, but if he had been sent off through a VAR review there’d have been few grumbles.
Possible red card: Wieffer challenge on Tonali
What happened: Mats Wieffer attempted to win the ball in a challenge with Sandro Tonali in the 51st minute but caught the Newcastle midfielder as he landed. Referee Craig Pawson gave the free kick but took no disciplinary action, and it was checked by the VAR, Andy Madley. (watch here)
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: Wieffer got a touch on the ball but caught Tonali on the ankle as his foot came down, though there wasn’t enough force for this to be serious foul play.
However, the nature of Wieffer’s challenge was reckless and he should have been booked. This problem for Pawson was that he’d already cautioned the Brighton & Hove Albion player in the 32nd minute for delaying the restart, so this should have led to a red card for two bookable offenses.
Verdict: VAR can’t get involved in second yellow cards, so Wieffer was very fortunate that the referee chose to give him one more chance. Not that he got the opportunity to make the most of it because manager Fabian Hürzeler substituted him two minutes later as a precaution.
Possible penalty overturn: Position of foul by Lamptey
What happened: Pawson awarded Newcastle a penalty in the 57th minute when Anthony Gordon was tripped by Tariq Lamptey. But was the contact inside the box, or just outside? (watch here)
VAR decision: Penalty canceled.
VAR review: For a tackle, the position of the offense is judged by the initial contact which causes the foul. If the two players continue to be in general contact into the area, it can’t be a penalty.
During a VAR review like this, you will see the VAR trying to find a freeze frame for that contact point, to judge if it happened inside the area or just outside.
The only time continuing contact is relevant is for holding, for instance the VAR penalty awarded to Brentford against Ipswich Town in October when Harry Clarke grabbed Keane Lewis-Potter outside the box and it continued into it.
Verdict: The foul contact by Lamptey was clearly just outside the box. It was close, but a correct VAR intervention.
Possible penalty overturn: Challenge by Van Hecke on Willock
What happened: Joe Willock looked to knock the ball past Jan Paul van Hecke in the 70th minute and went down looking for a penalty — Pawson pointed to the spot again. The VAR checked that it was the correct call. (watch here)
VAR decision: Penalty canceled.
VAR review: Van Hecke stopped his challenge before reaching Willock; the Newcastle player anticipated contact that didn’t arrive .
Willock seemed to realize this was the case and moved his right leg slightly toward Van Hecke when he was already going down, searching for that contact.
Verdict: For only the second time in six seasons of VAR in the Premier League, an attacker was booked for simulation after a penalty was overturned — there’s no doubt there should have been a few more cautions.
Before this weekend, the one and only booking was given by referee Michael Oliver for Chelsea’s Callum Hudson-Odoi after a spot kick was canceled against Burnley in October 2019 — the very first season of VAR.
Possible penalty overturn: Handball by Estupiñán
What happened: Pawson pointed to the spot in Newcastle’s favor for a third time when Pervis Estupiñán was ruled to have handled Fabian Schär’s shot from a free kick. (watch here)
VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Alexander Isak.
VAR review: A slightly strange situation where there were two potential handballs, with the referee giving the spot kick against Estupiñán — which was perhaps the least obvious.
From Schär’s shot, Brighton’s Yasin Ayari appeared to deliberately bring his arm down to the ball. The Sweden international maybe got a small touch on it, and it then went through and came off Estupiñán’s elbow.
Pawson then blew his whistle before Callum Wilson’s header was brilliantly saved by goalkeeper Bart Verbruggen; the referee probably should have held back for a second in case a goal was immediately scored.
Verdict: The decision to give a penalty against Estupiñán was supported by the VAR, but while his arm was up the ball did hit the elbow, which was quite close to the body. However, it was already raised before the shot was taken, which is taken into account too.
That the VAR spent some time trying to identify whether the ball had touched Ayari’s arm suggests there was at least some doubt about the Estupiñán offense.
If the VAR had felt Estupiñán’s incident wasn’t handball, the referee would have had to go to the monitor to judge the Ayari incident; in pure process terms, this would probably have been the correct result.
Possible penalty: Challenge by Robinson on Watkins
What happened: Ollie Watkins looked to get on the end of a ball over the top from John McGinn in the 32nd minute, but went down under pressure from Antonee Robinson. The Fulham defender gestured for the striker to get up, and referee Rob Jones wasn’t interested in a spot kick. It was checked by the VAR, Chris Kavanagh.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: There have been far worse examples of a defender using his body to ease an attacker off the ball, none of which were ruled a VAR error by the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel.
In February, Ipswich Town’s Dara O’Shea ran across and barged Tottenham Hotspur’s Kevin Danso to the ground inside the area. The KMI panel voted 3-2 that it should have been given as a penalty by the on-field team, but 5-0 that it hadn’t reached the threshold for the VAR to get involved. While there was a nudge by Robinson, it was far less blatant than that of O’Shea.
There was a similar example in Leicester City vs. Southampton at the weekend, too, with Jamie Vardy going down under a challenge from Tyler Dibling; again there was no VAR intervention.
Verdict: VAR has been consistent on this throughout the season, saying such challenges should be left to the referee. If given, it wouldn’t get overturned, but the VAR won’t intervene.
Possible goal: Handball offense by Sessegnon
What happened: Ryan Sessegnon tried to control the ball, it ran away from him slightly before he struck a shot into the bottom corner to equalize for Fulham in the 50th minute. However, Villa players were already appealing for handball before the Sessegnon hit the ball, and referee Jones ruled it out when it crossed the line.
VAR decision: No goal.
VAR review: You have to question the wisdom of Sessegnon for shooting, as there was no possibility he could actually score. If he’d laid the ball off for a teammate to shoot then the goal would have counted, an accidental handball offense only applies to the scorer of the goal.
In May 2021, the ball accidentally ricocheted up off the arm of Tottenham Hotspur striker Harry Kane in a game at Leicester City. Aware of the situation, Kane instead kept possession and passed to Gareth Bale to score.
Verdict: Any kind of accidental handball which comes immediately before a player scores means the goal has to be disallowed, so it was an easy check for the VAR.
Possible penalty overturn: Quansah challenge on Caicedo
What happened: Chelsea were awarded a penalty in the final seconds of stoppage time when Moisés Caicedo broke into the area and went down under a challenge from Jarell Quansah. Referee Simon Hooper pointed to the spot, and it was checked by the VAR, John Brooks.
VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Cole Palmer.
VAR review: Quansah gave Caicedo the perfect opportunity to use the challenge and win the penalty.
Unlike with the earlier Willock example, where the VAR intervened and the Newcastle player was booked for simulation, Quansah’s challenge didn’t stop before the running path of the opponent.
Caicedo certainly played for the penalty, but he could only win it due to the actions of the Liverpool defender.
Verdict: There was clear evidence of contact by the defender on the attacker, so the VAR will always support the on-field decision.
Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.
>
