Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made and are they correct?
This season, 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.
Tottenham Hotspur 1-2 Liverpool
Referee: John Brooks
VAR: Stuart Attwell
Incident: Possible red card
Time: 30th minute
What happened: Tottenham’s Xavi Simons was late with a challenge on Virgil van Dijk. Referee John Brooks’ original decision was a yellow card for a reckless challenge.
VAR decision: After VAR review, the referee overturned the original decision of a yellow card to Simons and issued a red card for serious foul play.
VAR review: A relatively straightforward process for VAR Stuart Attwell to recommend an on-field review to the referee, once the replays had been reviewed.
The characteristics of a reckless challenge, originally identified by the on-field referee, were not evident in the footage presented to the VAR team when reviewing the incident. Attwell would have been very uncomfortable with Simons’ action, feeling the contact on the back of Van Dijk’s calf, with a level of force and speed, endangered the safety of his opponent and met the threshold for a possible red card.
Having viewed the challenge from three different angles, at various speeds and paused at the point of contact, Attwell had no doubt that an on-field review was required.
Verdict: A correct and positive intervention by VAR in this situation, with Brooks also correct in overturning his original decision of a yellow card once reviewed.
Some will comment that Simons was unfortunate, with no intent and highlighting that these types of challenges can look worse in slow motion. I don’t disagree, but the nature of the contact in this challenge, on the back of the calf and with a level of force and speed, make this a dangerous one regardless.
These types of challenges are difficult to recognize as red card offenses in real time. Processing the point of contact, force and speed when two players are running in the same direction presents a challenge for the referee, and the original decision by Brooks of a yellow card was an understandable one.
Newcastle United 2-2 Chelsea
Referee: Andrew Madley
VAR: Peter Bankes
Incident: Penalty appeal for Newcastle United
Time: 55th minute
What happened: As the ball was played into the Chelsea penalty area, Chelsea defender Trevoh Chalobah challenged Anthony Gordon, seemingly making no contact with the ball and catching the left leg of Gordon. Referee Andrew Madley deemed it a fair challenge in real-time.
VAR decision: The referee’s call of no penalty to Newcastle was checked and confirmed by VAR, with the contact from Chalobah on Gordon deemed to be side-to-side in a shielding action and the ball within playing distance.
VAR review: As with all subjective calls, the starting point for the VAR is the on-field decision and the live communication.
Madley would have seen the contact from Chalobah as normal contact, describing the ball as running out of play. In his opinion, Gordon placed his body in a position to draw and create contact from Chalobah; therefore, Gordon was trying to win a penalty as opposed to it being a foul by the Chelsea defender.
Bankes, having viewed the footage, backed the on-field decision of no penalty and cleared the decision as correct.
Verdict: This was a foul challenge by Chalobah, and an on-field review and a penalty kick should have been the outcome.
I have some sympathy with Madley on-field, as he would have had some doubt that the level of contact, with the ball running out of play, met the threshold of a foul from his on-field position.
However, the review process by VAR would have highlighted that, despite the direction and destination of the loose ball, Chalobah made a clear, careless foul challenge on Gordon, making no contact on the ball.
It’s difficult to understand why Bankes did not recommend an on-field review to the referee in this event.
Referees are always reluctant to award fouls against defenders in these types of situations — certainly when a defender is adjudged to be guiding the ball out of play and the ball is in playing distance. However, this situation was different. All the evidence from the replays clearly indicate that this was a careless foul challenge by Chalobah, regardless of where the ball was, and an understanding that the defender was not in control of the ball at any point. A clear error had been made on-field and an OFR should have been the outcome.