The Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week Premier LeagueBut how are decisions made, and are they correct?
After each weekend we look back at the key incidents, and examine and explain the process within the context of VAR protocol and the laws of the game.
In this week’s VAR review: Was it right to reject it? AFC Bournemouthlate winner against Newcastle United? want more Joelinton Have you ever seen a red card? In addition, there have been two controversial penalty incidents Manchester City vs Ipswich Town,
Possible handball: Ouattara when scoring
What happened: Bournemouth scored what they believed to be the winning goal in the 92nd minute. Dango Ouattara The ball appears to have been headed home from a corner Lewis CookReferee David Coote gave the goal but VAR Tim Robinson checked it for a possible handball.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: It all started so well. The verdict of the Premier League’s independent Main Match Incident Panel, whatever you believe in it, gave one of its cleanest report cards from Matchday 1. Only one vote out of 195 across 39 incidents said there had been a mistake. For the record, it was west ham unitedfines against Aston Villa,
But PGMOL has little credit left after several high-profile incidents in the 2023-24 season. It did not take long for the perception of failure to return. In fact, West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady also managed to raise the issue in her newspaper column on Saturday. Despite a spotless opening weekend.
What the Premier League really needed was a strong August, devoid of controversy (you never miss a beat with controversial incidents.) Yet just minutes into this game, VAR was at its worst again.
There is nothing more infuriating for fans than seeing the video referee disallow a dramatic, late winner – especially when it proves to be unjust.
There was no conclusive evidence to say the ball struck Ouattara’s hand, where it is a handball offence. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t — but VAR should not disallow the goal without conclusive evidence. If in doubt, it should stick with the on-field call — and Bournemouth should have had a late winner.
It is also worth discussing the background. Contrary to popular belief, handball does not start at the bottom of the sleeve. It makes no sense when some players wear long-sleeved shirts.
Until 2021 there was no definition of handball in the Laws, but the whole hand was generally used to determine the offence. Therefore, until 2021 this goal would have been correctly disallowed.
Then, IFAB confused everyone by saying that the “T-shirt line” should be used.
(Brace yourself for the definition)
What it actually meant was the point around the circumference of the arm at the base of the armpit. Got it? No. But what IFAB was actually saying was that the shoulder area is no longer a handball, whereas it was before.
This is a very tricky spot to pinpoint. Where does the handball offence start? What if some part of the ball is touching below that point? Or does it have to be the entire ball? And how is this determined consistently based on different hand positions?
There have been some changes to the laws in recent years to aid referees and make it more difficult to judge handball.
This is not about “clear and obvious” or the new “referee’s decision”. It only refers to real subjective situations, such as potential red cards and penalties. Handball is considered factual before scoring, so if the ball touches the hand it cannot be a goal, regardless of the position of the player’s arm.
But a decision considered factual in definition can still be subjective in application. It’s possible that two officials make different decisions on this goal. In other leagues, the referee might be sent to the monitor to “sell” the decision: it’s such a big, match-defining moment that it’s not entirely clear, so the referee should make the final decision, even if strict protocol doesn’t require it. This has never happened in the Premier League.
It was only the ninth game as VAR for Tim Robinson, who has recently joined the Premier League squad. He has one mistake to his name in the previous eight games, a failure to award a penalty Nottingham Forest Against West Ham in February.
Each of Ouattara’s opening matchday goals were ruled out via VAR.
Potential red card: Joelinton on Neto
What happened: A few minutes later, Newcastle attacked and attacked the Bournemouth goalkeeper. Neto Joelinton pulled him down as he went to collect the ball on a fast break. Referee Coote warned the Newcastle player for unsportsmanlike behaviour. But was there a case for a red card?
VAR decision: No red cards.
VAR review: If there is a region, Premier League VAR has struggled to recognise serious fouls and violent conduct. Last season, eight of the 24 missed subjective interventions, a third, were directly related to red cards.
For Coote, it may have looked entirely like Joelinton had pulled the goalkeeper back to stop a fast break, but the height of the challenge, running a hand into Neto’s neck area, crossed the line in a dangerous action and a red card seems a fair consequence. VAR has decided that the referee’s decision to show yellow was not clearly wrong, yet at the same time Robinson felt there was enough evidence to rule out Bournemouth’s goal.
last weekend, Arsenal wanted a red card after Yersan Mosquera appeared to be up for grabs Kai Havertz By the throat, but with that call (no VAR intervention was unanimously supported by the KMI panel) there was a valid explanation that it was accidental Wolverhampton Wanderers The player was trying to save himself from the fall.
This is not the case here, as Joelinton deliberately did so to stop Neto and did so in a way that could have caused injury to his opponent. No other sport allows a player to remain on the field after such a challenge, and football should do the same.
Fabian Schär was sent against southampton Joelinton was also penalised for a minor blow to the head last week, yet the rules of football specifically cover a player attempting to do just that (hence Newcastle lost their appeal against the player’s ban.) Joelinton’s actions are left more open to interpretation in the rules than they perhaps should be.
Potential penalty: Davis challenges Savinho
What happened: Manchester City When the attack happened in the ninth minute Savinho gone down in the box after a challenge Leif DavisReferee Sam Alison ignored the penalty claims and it was checked by VAR, David Coote.See here,
VAR decision: Penalties, scored by Erling Haaland,
VAR review: Taken in isolation, this decision doesn’t merit much discussion. There is clear merit for a penalty due to Davies’ challenge on Savinho, as the Ipswich player did not get the ball and made some contact with an opponent. Was it enough for a VAR penalty? It’s not the most obvious decision we’ll see, but it was probably fair enough.
But the spot kick that Ipswich were denied later in the half reinforces the narrative (much like Bournemouth v Newcastle) that bigger clubs get to make decisions against smaller teams.
Potential penalty: Savinho’s challenge on Davies
What happened: The situation changed in the 42nd minute when Davies broke into the area and was tackled by Savinho. Referee Alisson denied the appeal and it was again spotted by Coote in the VAR hub.
VAR decision: No punishment.
VAR review: This time, VAR decided the referee was right not to award a penalty. Savinho’s challenge was deemed clumsy rather than crossing the line of a foul.
Davies looked like he was dropping down in anticipation of the contact, and his right leg seemed to have stuck out to initiate it. But there is an argument that the upper body, hip-to-hip contact caused the Ipswich player to go down.
Each of these incidents merited spot kicks – yet both went in favour of the bigger club.
Possible offside rebound: Vardy on Feys’ goal
What happened: Road Faisal I thought he would be able to match it Leicester City When he headed the ball forward with a header in the 38th minute Fulham Goalkeeper bernd lenobut the flag went against offside Jamie VardyWhich was deemed to be in the goalkeeper’s line of sight. It was checked by VAR, Jarrod Gillett.
VAR decision: Target.
VAR review: Vardy was in contact with Leno during the corner, but the offside decision only kicks in when Facey heads the ball in. That determines the situation and Vardy’s actions from that point come into play.
The angle behind the goal showed that Leno had a clear view of the ball at the moment Faes touched it, and Vardy made no attempt to play it or move across the goalkeeper’s path. Had Vardy been directly in front of the goalkeeper, the goal would have been disallowed.
Referee Darren Bond had to go to the pitchside monitor to make the decision himself, as it was a subjective decision requiring interpretation, unlike the standard, factual offside.
Probable offside: Garnacho goal
What happened: Manchester United took the lead on Brighton & Hove Albion in the 70th minute when alejandro garnacho The ball was hit with a sidefoot into an empty net, near the goalkeeper Jason Steele We are stuck. But as Argentina International player Chris Kavanagh celebrates as the VAR checks for a possible offside.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: Everyone thought it was Garnacho’s goal, but replays soon showed that the ball had hit the goalpost. Joshua Zirkzee,
The question was: did this happen before crossing the border? Netherlands The international’s knee was on the line when he touched the ball.
This appears to be a harsh decision, as there were no defenders nearby, and Zirkzee’s position had no material impact on the outcome: the ball was going to go into the net.
But since the ball reached Zirkzee before going in, he is the goal scorer, and it is impossible to score from an offside position.
It was a frustrating situation for Manchester United, but there was only one possible outcome to this genuine offside decision.
Potential red card: Mosquera’s challenge on Caicedo
What happened: Yerson Mosquera was booked in the 71st minute after a strong challenge. moises caicedoWas there a case for a red card?
VAR decision: No red cards.
VAR review: Mosquera took a risk with this challenge, as at one point he was on top of the ball. However, after making contact with the ball, Mosquera regained possession of the ball. Chelsea The player was on top of the foot so the booking was the correct decision. If the Wolves player had touched the shin then a VAR intervention by John Brooks would have been very likely.
Some factual parts of this article contain information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.