Steve Nicol recaps Liverpool’s 2-2 draw with Manchester United and explains why Arsenal’s defence keeps them at the top of the Premier League. (1:02)
Video assistant refereeing is debatable every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made?Are they correct?
After each weekend, we make an inventory of the main incidents, to review and follow the procedure in terms of the VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.
In this week’s VAR review: Liverpool and Arsenal received controversial consequences in their respective matches against Manchester United and Brighton
What happened: Harvey Elliott burst into the box in the 82nd minute, pushed the ball past Aaron Wan-Bissaka and fell to the ground. Referee Anthony Taylor immediately pointed to the spot, but was there any contact with the Liverpool player?
VAR Decision: Penalty conceded, scored by Mohamed Salah.
VAR review: Elliott uses Wan-Bissaka’s challenge to win a penalty, but that doesn’t make it a dive or a simulation.
We see a lot of diversifications of this type of penalty, where a protective player dives and doesn’t get close to the ball, while the attacker accepts the touch and falls. Elliott has no legal responsibility to stand in the way of Wan-Bissaka as the defender stretches out in front of him.
If Elliott had obviously moved a leg of his stride to make sure there was contact, that might warrant a VAR review, but it’s a quick and easy check for VAR John Brooks.
What happened: Wolves thought they had equalised in the 9th minute of stoppage time when Max Kilman went home from a corner. However, while the home side were celebrating, VAR had begun to check for a potential offside via Tawanda Chirewa, with referee Tony Harrington being sent to the monitor.
VAR Decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: “It was a terrible resolution,” Wolves boss Gary O’Neil said after the game. “It’s probably the worst resolution I’ve ever seen in my life. If your wisdom and understanding of the game are bad, you can conclude that he was offside. “
O’Neil has had a lot to complain about this season, with a series of terrible VAR decisions against his team. Wolves have suffered 3 VAR errors (only Liverpool and Nottingham Forest have more) despite being the only team in the Premier League. not having a single VAR reversal in their favour all season.
You can argue against the law, but his anger at the referees is misplaced and it’s a very simple reversal for VAR, Tim Robinson.
If a player is directly in front of the goalkeeper in the ball’s field of vision, the goal will almost be barred. Line of sight doesn’t just mean goalkeeper Lukasz Fabianski can’t see the ball; Chirewa’s presence so close to him would likely affect his decision to move as well.
It’s not that Fabianski doesn’t have a chance to save the ball, the law only requires that Chirewa’s movements prevent him from “playing or playing the ball”, so Fabianski could have done something else if the Wolves player had been there.
To say that Fabianski went out of Chirewa’s path only underlines that the goalkeeper is affected. If goals like this are not disallowed, it gives the attackers the right to stand in front of the goalkeeper in case of offside for the duration of the penalty. The kick is not directly towards them.
Those offside decisions, when the ball goes into the corner, look harsh, but if the shot is from close range, there’s little chance of the goal being met, and it’s not the first time this season that the law has been implemented in this way. However, on past occasions, the disallowed goal had no effect on the final outcome of the match, which would possibly explain why it was less controversial.
In September, Manchester United’s Jonny Evans saw a goal sent off for offside when Rasmus Højlund stood in front of James Trafford when the ball was directed at him; it’s true that he was much closer to the Burnley goalkeeper. The arbiter of that attack was also Harrington.
Another goal disallowed in a Burnley attack when Harvey Elliott’s goal for Liverpool scored at Turf Moor as Mohamed Salah got ahead of Trafford as he shot in.
And in February, it was Burnley’s turn to have a goal disallowed despite trailing 3-0 at Crystal Palace. David Datro Fofana went home just inside the box, but a VAR review ruled that Lorenz Assignon was in an offside position in front of Sam. Johnstone. Es unlikely that the goalkeeper prevented the goal, but VAR just wants it to have been touched.
In all three matches, the Premier League’s independent key incidents committee voted unanimously that offside was the correct decision.
And this type of offside resolution also occurs without VAR intervention. A near-carbon incident occurred during the match between Norwich City and Leicester City in August 2021. Kenny McLean went home from a corner, with the goal disallowed because Todd Cantwell was offside. and position directly in front of goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel. McLean’s header went into the back left corner of the goal, away from Schmeichel, but was disallowed.
The frustration of decisions like this lies in their unforeseen nature: goals disallowed in probable situations without risk, without them occurring, is one of the most annoying aspects of VAR. Move to a ‘challenge’ system, in which coaches score a set number of goals. Calls consistent with the game would have a negative impact, but recommending that goals like this not be attributed to VAR is fanciful.
If you had a challenge system, clubs would have a member whose sole task would be to review a goal and locate an appeal record. As soon as the West Ham bench saw Chirewa in front of their goalkeeper in an offside position, there would be an immediate challenge.
What happened: Wolves were awarded a penalty in the 30th minute when Rayan Aït-Nouri brought down in the box through Emerson. Referee Harrington pointed to the spot and the decision was verified by VAR.
VAR Decision: Penalty awarded by Pablo Sarabia.
VAR assessment: Possibly there would have only been a small touch on Aït-Nouri, however, Emerson dived as the Wolves player was heading towards goal and there is no prospect of VAR reversing once the kick is given on the pitch.
What happened: West Ham conceded a goal in the 63rd minute when the referee ruled Emerson had fouled Nélson Semedo before going home at the far post. The VAR checked for a possible foul.
VAR Decision: No goal.
VAR review: While it might seem like a comfortable solution on the pitch, Emerson stands at Semedo’s foot when the cross arrives, causing the Wolves player to drop and leaving the striker with a weak header.
Once the VAR identifies that Semedo has been incriminated, the referee’s decision will be overturned.
What happened: Arsenal were awarded a penalty in the 31st minute when referee John Brooks ruled that Tariq Lamptey had brought down Gabriel Jesus just inside the box. It appeared that Lamptey had touched the ball with the resolution verified through the VAR, Robert Jones (see here).
VAR Decision: Penalty scored by Bukayo Saka.
VAR review: touching the ball can be a penalty, and VAR would have taken that into account; But the context of the scenario and the nature of the challenge are equally important.
If two players are involved in a 50-50 war over the ball, and there is a touch with the opponent after touching the ball, the referee, and even the VAR, is much less likely to see an infringement. especially if he touches the ball. The other player is also light.
However, in this case, Jesus had the ball and went into the box. Even if Lamptey touched the ball, that wouldn’t have stopped Jesus from retaining ownership in the penalty area. Lamptey then made a clear touch with Jesus on the shin with a quick movement and hooked the Arsenal striker’s leg.
Even if it hadn’t been awarded on the pitch, it would most likely have been a VAR review for a kick.
What happened: James Maddison and Ryan Yates were involved in an altercation just before half-time, with the Nottingham Forest player falling to the ground clutching his stomach. When the ball went out of play, Yates pointed VAR to referee Simon Hooper 3 times. . Michael Salisbury has been reviewed for possible violent driving and a red card for the Tottenham Hotspur player.
VAR Decision: No card.
VAR Review: This is a review of a serious incident overlooked as none of the on-field referees noticed it. Then, it is at the discretion of the VAR if there is definitive evidence.
Maddison took a huge risk, but is there enough evidence to verify an act of violence?Laws on the subject were relaxed several years ago with the kind of red card England’s David Beckham won against Argentina at the 1998 World Cup, which distinguishes well between an irritable act and a violent one.
From the replays, it is unimaginable to identify a clenched fist from Maddison, while it is difficult to say that the act was “excessive force or brutality. “If there were more conclusive angles for VAR, it would most likely be concerned, but there doesn’t seem to be enough to fully warrant a red card review.
Yates is also lucky, as he already had a yellow card when he made the VAR signal. It is a yellow card, but only if the player does it excessively. If the signal continually crosses that threshold for a yellow card, it would count on the referee. , who opted to caution the Forest player.
No retrospective action by the Football Association is imaginable, as it has been reviewed via VAR.
What happened: Danilo cleared a clearance in the 78th minute and with his shot he nailed Giovani Lo Celso to the knee. The referee showed a yellow card, and the decision was reviewed by the VAR.
VAR Decision: No card.
VAR review: This is used to judge how well a player has coped with the challenge, as well as the force involved. The fact that Danilo clears the ball, rather than trying to challenge an opponent, makes all the difference, and we have an example of improper VAR intervention in a past season in similar circumstances.
West Ham’s Fabian Balbuena cleared the ball and his foot landed on the leg of Chelsea’s Ben Chilwell. After a VAR review, Balbuena showed a red card, which the Hammers overturned on appeal.
What happened: Dara O’Shea was ejected in the 67th minute after bringing down Dwight McNeil. The Everton midfielder took advantage of a foul by O’Shea to put his foot on the ball. Referee Michael Oliver deemed McNeil to have marked purpose and issued a straight red card for not allowing an apparent opportunity to score on purpose (DOGSO).
VAR Decision: The card is still valid.
VAR review: This is a questionable red card decision, and Burnley boss Vincent Kompany’s frustration is understandable.
When McNeil picks up the ball and pushes it towards goal, it is way ahead of him and there will have to be a clear doubt about his ability with the ball against goalkeeper Aro Muric, so that shouldn’t be the case. Violation of DOGSO.
David Coote, in the VAR, has told Oliver to review his yellow card, and there will most likely be an appeal against the red card.
What happened: Beto scored a goal in the 87th minute before collapsing under a tackle by Sander Berge. Referee Oliver wasn’t interested in the foul allegations.
VAR Decision: No penalty and no card.
VAR review: Although there is a case of foul by Bergé, the touch on Beto is done inside the D rather than in the box, so there can be no penalty.
As the conceivable foul occurs outside the box, this paves the way for a red card for DOGSO. Fortunately for Berge, Beto takes a strong throw-in that puts Muric in play and means there probably wasn’t an apparent chance to score. so VAR can’t intervene.
What happened: James Garner placed the ball right in the box in the third minute of stoppage time and looked to move the ball to the right. Jay Rodriguez threw a challenge and touched Garner, but referee Oliver denied the penalty request.
VAR Decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Like Dominic Calvert-Lewin’s appeal against Bournemouth last weekend, there wasn’t enough touch from Rodriguez for VAR to pass judgment on Garner being overturned.
The independent panel ruled in a 4-1 ruling that Calvert-Lewin does not contest a penalty.
What happened: Jack Robinson was cautioned by referee Robert Jones in the 58th minute after a poor tackle on Cole Palmer. The VAR, Paul Tierney, has checked a possible red card.
VAR Decision: No card.
VAR review: There have been 4 red cards for serious fouls in the Premier League this season, and there is a possibility that it will be only a fifth. Robinson accepts the challenge forcefully and grabs Palmer by the calf area.
The fact that Palmer didn’t have his leg planted saved him from injury and made it seem like a yellow card would be an appropriate disciplinary measure, but that’s on the borderline.
Casemiro issued a similar challenge to Luis Diaz in the last minute of Manchester United’s match against Liverpool. The Brazilian earned a yellow card for the tackle, and the low touch saved him from a possible red card. You might think of a yellow card being appropriate in this case, however, there is the argument that it was out of control and out of control.
What happened: Eberechi Eze tried to win the ball back in the box in the 45th minute, but found himself on the ground after a challenge from Josko Gvardiol. Referee Paul Tierney ignored the shooting orders and the decision was reviewed by VAR Stuart Attwell.
VAR Decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Gvardiol is clumsy in the way he demands situations from Eze, but as Tierney has a clear view of the incident, this will not be sanctioned by the VAR review.
What happened: Newcastle United took the lead in the 75th minute from a corner, with Fabian Schär firing at the far post after the ball slipped away from everyone in the centre of the box. However, VAR has introduced an examination to detect a conceivable foul through Dan. Burn on Calvin Bassey.
VAR Decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: After Anthony Gordon’s goal for Newcastle against Arsenal was allowed despite Joelinton having his hands on Gabriel’s back, Gunners enthusiasts might be wondering what the difference is for VAR to get involved at Craven Cottage.
These conditions will be subjective and will have the opinion of the VAR for each individual fit and the foul threshold.
Jarred Gillett, as VAR, felt that by wrapping his arms around Bassey’s neck, Burn had prevented the Fulham player from fighting for the ball. It’s a big enough challenge for VAR intervention to be warranted, but chances are there will be other incidents. that look similar and possibly don’t result in the purpose being rejected.
What happened: The attack in the 34th minute when Aston Villa won a corner. When the ball reached the box, Diego Carlos fell to the ground in a fight with Mathias Jorgensen. Referee Michael Salisbury gave a free kick to Brentford, but Villa looked for it after a penalty.
VAR Decision: No penalty.
VAR review: This may have simply been a shot on target, and in fact it wasn’t a foul by Carlos; VAR will only be concerned if it believes a penalty was missed, rather than a free kick awarded incorrectly.
VAR Chris Kavanagh felt Carlos leaning over Jorgensen before the Aston Villa player fell to the ground. It’s probably a proper interpretation of events, but Jorgensen was lucky.
Parts of this article include data provided through the Premier League and PGMOL.