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: Was the VAR right to advise a red card for Brentford‘s Christian Nørgaard at Everton? Was Southampton‘s penalty against Liverpool the correct decision? And should Saints have had a second spot kick? Plus, why wasn’t Wilfred Ndidi shown a red card for his challenge on Cole Palmer?
Possible red card: Challenge by Nørgaard on Pickford
What happened: Brentford were on the attack in the 39th minute when captain Christian Nørgaard tried to get onto the end of a ball played into the box. Nørgaard couldn’t reach it and collided with goalkeeper Jordan Pickford. Referee Chris Kavanagh gave no foul but as Pickford stayed down for treatment holding his knee, it was looked at by the VAR, Matt Donohue.
VAR decision: Red card.
VAR review: This was perhaps the most controversial incident of the weekend, and many ex-professionals argued that the Brentford player had every right to go for the ball to try to score. That’s not in any doubt, as with any attempt to win the ball or take a shot. The difference is how a player does so. The law demands that a player is at least aware of where an opponent may be, and how they go into a challenge. That this came from a shooting situation rather than a tackle also leads supporters and ex-pros to feel it was unfair.
Nørgaard is unfortunate, as you wouldn’t say there was any intention to commit a foul. But intent doesn’t exist in the laws anymore; the judgment is purely about the nature of the challenge and, as he led with studs facing at knee height onto Pickford, it ticks the boxes for serious foul play.
Brentford boss Thomas Frank has suggested the club are likely to appeal against the three-match ban Nørgaard will receive, yet the chances of success aren’t high. That said, you can’t second guess the outcome of the appeals panel, which is made up of three former players acting on law guidance from a referee expert (who gives no opinion on the case being discussed, only on aspects of law.)
For instance, Manchester United‘s Bruno Fernandes only won his appeal for the red card against Tottenham Hotspur‘s James Maddison by two votes to one.
If it could be argued that if Nørgaard’s challenge is a red card then Man United’s Lisandro Martínez shouldn’t have got away with a yellow card for his challenge on Cole Palmer‘s knee at the start of the month. Yet in that case the KMI panel voted 3-2 that a caution was correct on the field, and 5-0 that VAR was right not to intervene for a red as Martínez made minimal contact and wasn’t sliding in.
Verdict: It was harsh on Nørgaard, but the way the law is written it’s hard to argue a red card didn’t meet the criteria for serious foul play.
Possible penalty overturn: Position of foul by Robertson on Dibling
What happened: Tyler Dibling ran through toward the penalty box in the 40th minute before being brought down by Andrew Robertson right on the edge of the box. Referee Sam Barrott looked over to his assistant for advice on the position of the foul before pointing to the penalty spot. The VAR, Michael Oliver, only needed to check the position of the challenge as there was no doubt it was a foul. (watch here)
VAR decision: Penalty stands. Adam Armstrong‘s shot saved by Caoimhín Kelleher, but scored on the rebound.
VAR review: For fouls caused by a tackle, the offence is judged as the point of contact which causes the foul. This might not be the first contact by defender on attacker. A foul continuing into the area is only considered a penalty in a holding offence, such as the VAR spot kick given to Brentford against Ipswich for Harrison Clarke‘s foul on Keane Lewis-Potter last month.
There were several images shared on social media that claimed to show the foul was outside the area, yet the image had been taken before the actual foul contact. There might have been foot-on-foot contact at first, but this wasn’t the offence: it was Robertson’s calf on Dibling’s shin, which appears to be above the line of the penalty area. The line belongs to the box, and a spot kick should be awarded.
It’s far too close to call for the VAR to be definitive that the shin-on-calf contact is before the area line to overrule the on-field decision of a penalty.
The VAR would need clear evidence to intervene, as seen last season when a foul by Manchester United‘s Willy Kambwala on AFC Bournemouth‘s Ryan Christie was outside the box.
Verdict: No VAR intervention the correct outcome.
Possible red card: Foul by Lallana on Gravenberch
What happened: Adam Lallana tried to bring the ball out of defence in the 23rd minute, took a poor touch and caught Ryan Gravenberch when trying to adjust from his error. Referee Barrott showed a yellow card, and the VAR checked for a possible red card.
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: It wasn’t a great challenge from Lallana, caused by trying to react to his own lack of control. But the contact on Gravenberch above the ankle was slight, and there wasn’t enough to suggest a yellow card was an unacceptable disciplinary outcome.
There are examples of similar incidents which haven’t resulted in a VAR intervention, including Wolverhampton Wanderers‘ Yerson Mosquera on Moisés Caicedo earlier this season, which had far more contact.
Verdict: Doesn’t reach the threshold for a VAR red card.
Possible penalty: Challenge by Kelleher on Armstrong
What happened: Armstrong ran into the area in the 61st minute, and as Liverpool goalkeeper Kelleher came out to close him down the two players collided. The referee gave a free kick against the Southampton attacker for holding, but was there grounds for a penalty?
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Southampton manager Russell Martin was adamant that his team should have had a penalty when his team were 2-1 in front.
Referee Barrott saw that Armstrong was pulling on the shirt of Liverpool defender Conor Bradley, and gave the free kick for this before the collision between goalkeeper and attacker. Therefore, the referee has stopped play before any foul took place.
It’s possible for the VAR to determine there was no initial foul by Armstrong — indeed, you could argue that the Liverpool player was holding his opponent too — but with the high threshold for VAR in the Premier League, the on-field call for the first foul is unlikely to be seen as a clear and obvious error.
Verdict: Kelleher was lucky the referee had already decided to stop play, because his challenge on Armstrong could have been judged to be a penalty. Even then, the nature of how the two players came together could be judged to be referee’s call and not for VAR.
Possible penalty overturn: No handball by Sugawara
What happened: Liverpool were awarded a penalty in the 81st minute. Salah crossed into the box and as Yukinari Sugawara moved to intercept the ball going to Robertson at the back post, it bounced off the defender’s chest and onto his arm. Was there a case for the spot kick to be overturned for accidental handball? The VAR had a look. (watch here)
VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Mohamed Salah.
VAR review: If the ball comes off a player’s body onto the arm with a clear change of trajectory, then that can be judged as accidental handball — even if the arm is well away from the body in an unnatural position.
However, this is all trumped by the act of deliberate handball. Replays showed that Sugawara made a clear movement with his hand to cup the ball as it was about to go past him; even if that was involuntary, or a reflex reaction, it’s enough for a penalty.
It’s only the second handball spot kick given in the Premier League this season, and the first for a deliberate movement.
Verdict: No VAR intervention.
Possible penalty: Challenge by Konate on Armstrong
What happened: Armstrong looked to move into the area in the seventh minute and went down under a challenge from Ibrahima Konaté. Referee Barrott indicated there was no foul, but could there have been a penalty?
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: A very quick check for the VAR, as the hand on the back from Konaté on Armstrong was outside the area. There wasn’t enough in it for a free kick anyway, but the VAR cannot intervene to give a foul; the challenge would have to be in the area and a possible penalty.
Verdict: No VAR intervention.
Possible red card: Foul by Ndidi on Palmer
What happened: Cole Palmer was on the ball in the 22nd minute when Wilfred Ndidi stood on the back of his heel. Referee Andy Madley opted to show Ndidi a yellow card, and it was checked for a possible red by the VAR, Paul Tierney.
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: The VAR opted not to advise a red card due to a lack of force and intensity in the challenge. We hear this a lot in the Premier League, yet for tackles where there is no conceivable chance of playing the ball, when the only realistic intention of the challenge is to take out an opponent and could easily have caused an injury, players get away with it too often. Very rarely does it result in a VAR red card, and usually only through an on-field call. That doesn’t make it right, of course, and I’ve regularly discussed how missed serious-foul-play red cards are one of the league’s shortcomings, and a quarter of missed VAR interventions last season were for such dismissals.
One time PGMOL did admit that a clear red card had been missed came in an FA Cup tie between Brighton & Hove Albion and Liverpool in the 2022-23 season, when Fabinho lunged in from behind on Evan Ferguson and the VAR failed to intervene. Fabinho’s challenge had far more force, but we’re really only talking about shades of red rather than challenges that should be allowed to pass as a yellow.
Verdict: The Premier League’s Key Match Incidents Panel may well judge this as a red card on the pitch, but there was not enough it in for the VAR to get involved. Though that perhaps says more about the attitude to serious foul play in the English top flight.
Possible red card: Foul by Soumaré on Felix
What happened: Seven minutes later, Boubakary Soumaré was given a yellow card after a sliding challenge on João Félix. Referee Madley played advantage but was able to come back and book the Leicester City player as it was deemed reckless, rather than stopping a promising attack (which would have meant no caution.) (watch here)
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: Another poor challenge, this time by Soumaré, but it was low and there was only a small amount of contact on Felix’s boot. This wasn’t likely to be the subject of a VAR review to upgrade to a red card.
Verdict: No VAR intervention.
Possible penalty: Challenge by Fofana on Mavididi
What happened: Stephy Mavididi moved into the penalty area in the 84th minute and, as he checked inside, he went down under a challenge from Wesley Fofana. Referee Madley allowed play to continue.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: The question for the VAR is whether the contact between Fofana and Mavididi was a foul, or whether it was the Leicester player who tried to win a penalty.
There’s a case on either side, as while Fofana doesn’t make a challenge you can argue that he blocked Mavididi’s movement. However, this kind of situation isn’t going to lead to a VAR intervention and will be left to the referee’s call.
Verdict: Not close to the threshold for a penalty.
Possible penalty: No offside before foul by Lavia on De Cordova-Reid
What happened: Referee Madley pointed to the penalty spot in the 93rd minute after Bobby De Cordova-Reid was brought down by Romeo Lavia, but the offside flag went up straight away. (watch here)
VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Jordan Ayew.
VAR review: The VAR’s first job was to check the factual aspect of the offside against De Cordova-Reid. It was clear that the Leicester player was onside, so the decision on the field reverts to a penalty to the home side — there’s no need for Madley to go to the monitor to give a spot kick he’d already signalled.
The VAR still had to check the foul itself, but it doesn’t need Madley to confirm it.
Verdict: Factual onside call.
Possible penalty: Challenge by Hughes on Bailey
What happened: Aston Villa were on the attack in the 42nd minute when Leon Bailey went to ground under pressure from Will Hughes. Referee Tim Robinson saw no foul and allowed play to continue, but it was looked at by the VAR, Alex Chilowicz. (watch here)
VAR decision: Penalty, Youri Tielemans‘ effort saved by Dean Henderson.
VAR review: It looks like a soft penalty, but it is the second VAR spot kick awarded for a defender standing on the heel of an attacker and preventing him from being able to play the ball.
The other came in Fulham vs. Nottingham Forest for a foul by Murillo on Andreas Pereira.
Verdict: The KMI panel unanimously voted the penalty given to Fulham was correct, and this falls into the same category.
Possible DOGSO red card: Foul by Maatsen on Sarr
What happened: Ismaïla Sarr looked to be through on goal in the 65th minute when he was brought down by Ian Maatsen. Referee Robinson gave the free kick and showed the yellow card, but was there a case for a red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO)?
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: This is a borderline call and could easily have resulted in a red card for the Aston Villa player. All that saves Maatsen is that Sarr is in a relatively wide position at the point of the challenge, taking into account viable shooting positions. But there’s doubt that Diego Carlos would have been able to get across and make a challenge before a shot.
If Robinson had shown a red card in this situation, the VAR wouldn’t have intervened to overturn it.
Verdict: While a yellow card will likely be supported by the KMI Panel, Maatsen is very lucky. A better outcome here might well have been a DOGSO red card.
Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.
