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: How did Aston Villa‘s Tyrone Mings escape a red card for an elbow, yet Chelsea striker Nicolas Jackson was sent off? Why didn’t Matheus Cunha see red for denial of a goal-scoring opportunity? And should Brentford have been awarded multiple penalties for holding at Ipswich Town?
Possible red card: Serious foul play by Jackson
What happened: Goalkeeper Robert Sánchez launched a long ball forward in the 33rd minute. Nicolas Jackson looked to challenge Newcastle United defender Sven Botman, and sent him crashing to the ground. The referee, John Brooks, gave a yellow card but it was looked at by the VAR, Darren England, for a possible red card. (watch here)
VAR decision: Red card.
VAR review: This was more of a talking point due to Aston Villa’s Tyrone Mings escaping a red card after catching AFC Bournemouth‘s Alex Scott in the face on Saturday. The two are clearly comparable, but with key differences which make the final outcomes justifiable.
When Sánchez plays the pass, Jackson has plenty of time to make a decision about how he’s going to challenge Botman (the VAR showed the referee this at full speed several times); Jackson also had a look to see where the opponent was. As the ball was dropping, the Chelsea attacker ran into the Netherlands international with his elbow leading, effectively pointing into the opponent.
It was an obvious case of a “challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force,” and a pretty simple serious foul play intervention for the VAR. It’s not violent conduct because Jackson was attempting to win the ball.
So why was it different to Mings? Crucially, the Aston Villa defender could be considered to performing a normal footballing action in attempting to shield the ball. When his elbow connects with the face of Scott, both of his arms are in the same position and he’s facing the ball. Mings could still commit serious foul play or violent conduct, of course, but there was no throwing of the elbow and, importantly, he wasn’t running into the opponent to create force.
Whether Mings, who did check where Scott was, knew what he was doing is something we can only guess. But it’s perfectly explainable that Mings was positioning himself for a challenge, and it’s just that Scott’s size meant he came out on the wrong end of Mings’ arm.
Verdict: Each incident has to be judged on its own merits. Just because there are two stray elbows across a weekend doesn’t mean the disciplinary action must be the same. It’s one of the main drivers of accusations of inconsistency, across lots of different offences, as the judgement of individual referees within the framework of the laws won’t be the same. Often it’s not truly inconsistency, it’s simply that each incident is unique.
Maybe Jackson would argue that he expected Botman to jump, but he led into Botman with the arm, and his movement created a degree of force which was dangerous. Mings had his arm up, but the connection with Scott can be considered incidental — and we’ve seen plenty of similar situations this season.
Last season, the VAR failed to intervene to advise a red card for Bruno Guimarães after he ran in and planted his arm onto the head of Arsenal‘s Jorginho. This was probably worse than that, and was a correct intervention.
Possible penalty: Handball by Mykolenko
What happened: Fulham were on the attack in the seventh minute of added time when Adama Traoré tried to cross into the area. The ball was blocked by Everton defender Vitaliy Mykolenko from close range, and referee Darren England signaled for a corner. The VAR, Michael Salisbury, sent the referee to the monitor to give a penalty for handball.
VAR decision: Review for a penalty rejected at the monitor.
VAR review: There have been only nine penalties for handball in the Premier League all season, and this would have been a complete outlier. Those awarded have all involved the arm being fully extended away from the body, usually raised in the air, or due to a deliberate act.
Perhaps the VAR, who statistically has a very good record over the past two seasons, came to the decision because Mykolenko’s arm was in a very high position just before Traoré kicked the ball. But when it struck the Ukraine international, his arm was in a position which could be explainable for his movement, and closer to the body. In Europe, however, it would very likely have resulted in a spot kick at the monitor.
Verdict: For only the 13th time in six seasons of VAR in the Premier League, and the second time in this campaign, the referee chose to stick with his decision (the other 12 are listed here).
It proved to be the start of a good weekend for referee England, who would intervene as VAR for the Jackson red card 24 hours later.
Possible penalty: Challenge by Greaves on Van den Berg
What happened: Brentford won a corner in the 16th minute. As Bryan Mbeumo was about to deliver, Sepp van den Berg went to ground under a challenge from Jacob Greaves. The referee stopped play for the corner to be retaken and the VAR, Jarred Gillett, checked for a possible penalty.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: This would have been a penalty but for one crucial factor — the ball was not in play when the offence took place, which means a penalty isn’t possible.
Referee Sam Barrott could have booked Greaves if he’d fully seen the incident, as it was a wild challenge with Van den Berg effectively rugby-tackled to the floor. Indeed, on the corner retake, Christian Nørgaard and Jack Taylor were both cautioned for grappling; Brentford scored when the set piece was taken for a third time.
Verdict: Greaves was lucky, because he had already fouled Van den Berg before Mbeumo delivered the corner into the area. It was a clear non-footballing action.
We saw a similar incident in Southampton vs. Manchester City, with Taylor Harwood-Bellis pushing over Manuel Akanji on a free kick. Again, the ball was not in play so there was no decision for the VAR to make on the foul.
Possible penalty: Challenge by Tuanzebe on Collins
What happened: Brentford had a throw in the 66th minute. It was launched deep into the area by Michael Kayode, with Nathan Collins ending up on the deck asking for a penalty. Referee Barrott again didn’t give a spot kick, and it was looked at by the VAR.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: After the match, Ipswich Town boss Kieran McKenna criticized the stoppages in the game for VAR checks, yet these were almost exclusively due to holding by his own players. It also caused retakes of set pieces several times. And his team were very lucky not to concede a couple of penalties.
As the long throw arrived in the area, Axel Tuanzebe and Collins were all over each other — and it’s that mutual holding which led the VAR to allow play to continue.
Tuanzebe had his arms around Collins, but the Brentford player also had a hand on the head of his opponent. If there is mutual holding, it’s a key consideration against an intervention. Indeed, later in the game Greaves and Yehor Yarmoliuk were holding onto each other in the Brentford area and no spot kick was given.
Verdict: There was a separate factor in the Tuanzebe challenge. After the mutual holding, Collins gets clear of the opponent. It’s then that Tuanzebe appears to grab him around the waist and pull him to the floor. It’s a secondary act, and a clear non-footballing action — very much like that of Greaves in the first half — and a penalty should have been awarded.
The amount of holding in this game was ridiculous, and it has got worse across the Premier League as the season has progressed. Clamping down on it is difficult, because initiatives at the start of the season always seem to fade away. But it feels like the get-out clause of mutual holding is too all-encompassing right now — especially when you could argue that Collins was simply trying to free himself from an illegal challenge.
Possible offside overturn: Minteh on Welbeck goal
What happened: Danny Welbeck thought he had given Brighton & Hove Albion the lead in the 23rd minute when he steered the ball home from close range, but the assistant raised his flag for an offside against Yankuba Minteh. (watch here)
VAR decision: No goal.
VAR review: Minteh made an obvious action — sticking his leg out to the ball as Welbeck’s shot went toward the goal — which had to impact Wolverhampton Wanderers goalkeeper José Sá.
Verdict: It was a good on-field decision, and one which would definitely have led to a VAR intervention if not given on the field.
Yet, along with Crystal Palace‘s disallowed goal at Tottenham Hotspur, it did highlight that the semi-automated VAR animation isn’t always clear. One of the big selling points of the new VAR tech was the ability to show the final decision more clearly, yet by not moving in line it still seems a little confusing.
The Premier League is the only competition to keep the “tolerance level” of 5 cm following the move to semi-automated technology, and it’s also the only one that doesn’t move in line for the final image.
While the “tolerance level” wasn’t used here, because Minteh was offside by a greater margin, the image is still at an angle. It feels like there has to be a better way of displaying this, of moving directly inline but indicating the “tolerance level.”
Under the old tech, this was done with the use of a single green line to the defender. That wasn’t widely known, because the Premier League didn’t really communicate it, but it was there.
Possible red card: DOGSO by Cunha
What happened: Brighton were awarded a penalty in the 27th minute. Matheus Cunha was robbed on the edge of the area by Mats Wieffer, and as the Brighton player ran in on goal he was brought down. Referee Michael Oliver gave the spot kick and booked Cunha, but was there a case for a red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO)? The VAR, James Bell, had a look. (watch here)
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: The law around DOGSO red cards inside the area has been relaxed several times in recent years, with double jeopardy trying to prevent a player conceding a spot kick and getting sent off. The law now says that a player should be booked if they are making a genuine challenge for the ball, or the opponent.
The definition is very loose, so much so that if the ball is in the vicinity when a player makes a tackle it’s very unlikely to be a red card.
At Euro 2024, Oliver was the referee when Spain midfielder Rodri fouled Croatia‘s Bruno Petkovic, who seemed certain to score. Rodri was only booked, even though the chances of him winning the ball were slim, and there was no VAR review. It showed how lenient the law now is on tackles inside the area and DOGSO considerations.
Verdict: There’s a case that Cunha wasn’t trying to play the ball due to the way he challenged Wieffer, and his only intention was to prevent the Brighton player getting the shot away. Had the ball been a few yards in front of Wieffer, there would have been a much higher chance of a red card; as the ball was close, it’s unlikely there would be a VAR intervention.
Pulling and holding is effectively the only way a player gets a DOGSO red card inside the area in the modern game.
Possible goal: Foul by Konaté on Lewis-Skelly
What happened: Liverpool thought they had scored a dramatic winner with the last touch of the game when Virgil van Dijk saw a header saved by David Raya, and Andrew Robertson scored from the rebound. It was immediately ruled out by referee Anthony Taylor for a foul on Myles Lewis-Skelly by Ibrahima Konaté. (watch here)
VAR decision: No goal.
VAR review: Konaté had his hand fully into the face of the Arsenal player, so there’s no chance the VAR is going to overrule the on-field call.
If the foul hadn’t been given by Taylor, it’s possible the goal would have stood on the grounds that it was inconsequential to the goal.
Verdict: As Taylor held the whistle until the ball crossed the line, that enabled the VAR, Paul Tierney, to check it and possibly award the goal.
Possible disallowed goal: Foul throw by Thomas
What happened: Leicester City took the lead in the 16th minute through Conor Coady via a long-throw routine, but Nottingham Forest fans were furious that Luke Thomas had a foot on the pitch when he released the ball.
VAR decision: No intervention possible.
Verdict: VAR cannot rule on restarts so wouldn’t have been able to intervene even if it had been a foul throw — but it wasn’t, which is a common misunderstanding of the law.
There’s no issue with the throw-in taker having one foot on the pitch, as long as part of the boot is in contact with the touchline. Think of it like part of the ball needing to be level with the quadrant on a corner — most of it can be on the pitch.
So, it’s a completely legal throw by Thomas, despite the chants of, “You don’t know what you’re doing” toward the officials by the Forest crowd.
Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.
