The Video Assistant Referee sparks controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made and are they correct?
This season, we look back at major incidents to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.
Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, with over 12 seasons on the elite list, working in the Premier League and Championship. With extensive experience at elite level, he has operated within the VAR space in the Premier League and offers unique insight into the processes, rationales and protocols implemented during a Premier League match day.
Tottenham Hotspur 1-2 Liverpool
Arbitrator: John Brooks
OUR: Stuart Attwell
Incident: A possible red card
Time: 30th minute
What happened: Tottenham’s Xavi Simons was late with a challenge on Virgil van Dijk. Referee John Brooks’ initial decision was a yellow card for reckless challenge.
VAR decision: After reviewing the VAR, the referee overturned the initial yellow card decision to Simons and issued a red card for serious foul play.
VAR Review: A relatively simple process for VAR Stuart Attwell to recommend an on-field review to the referee, once replays have been reviewed.
The hallmarks of a reckless challenge, initially identified by the on-field referee, were not evident in the footage shown to the VAR team when reviewing the incident. Attwell was said to have been very uncomfortable with Simons’ action, feeling that the force and speed of the contact on the back of Van Dijk’s calf endangered the centre-back’s safety and reached the threshold for a possible red card.
Having seen the challenge from three different angles, at different speeds and stopping at the point of contact, Attwell was convinced that an on-field review was necessary.
Verdict: A correct and positive intervention from VAR in this situation, with Brooks also right to reverse his initial decision of a yellow card once reviewed.
Some will say that Simons was unfortunate, without any intention, and point out 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, makes it a dangerous challenge regardless.
These types of challenges are difficult to recognize as red cards in real time. Dealing with point of contact, force and speed when two players are running in the same direction presents a challenge for the referee, and Brooks’ initial decision of a yellow card was understandable.
Newcastle United 2-2 Chelsea
Arbitrator: Andrew Madley
OUR: Peter Bankes
Incident: Penalty appeal for Newcastle United
Time: 55th minute
What happened: As the ball was sent into the Chelsea penalty area, Chelsea defender Trevoh Chalobah challenged Anthony Gordon, apparently making no contact with the ball and grabbing Gordon’s left leg. Referee Andrew Madley ruled it a fair challenge in real time.
VAR decision: The referee’s no-penalty call at Newcastle was verified and confirmed by VAR, with Chalobah’s contact on Gordon deemed to be side-to-side in a shielding action and the ball within playing distance.
VAR Review: As with all subjective decisions, the starting point for VAR is the on-field decision and live communication.
Madley reportedly saw Chalobah’s contact as normal contact, describing the ball as being out of play. According to him, Gordon placed his body in a position to attract and create contact from Chalobah; therefore, Gordon was trying to win a penalty rather than it being a foul by the Chelsea defender.
Bankes, after viewing the footage, supported the on-field decision not to penalize and confirmed the decision as correct.
Verdict: This was a crude challenge from Chalobah, and a field review and penalty should have been the result.
I have some sympathy with Madley on the field, as he would have had doubts that the level of contact, with the ball out of play, rose to the threshold of a foul from his position on the field.
However, the VAR review process would have highlighted that, despite the direction and destination of the loose ball, Chalobah made a clear and reckless challenge on Gordon, making no contact with the ball.
It is 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 to defenders in these types of situations – particularly when a defender is judged to be guiding the ball out of play and the ball is within playing distance. However, this situation was different. All the evidence from the replays clearly indicates that this was a careless foul by Chalobah, regardless of where the ball was, and that it was understood that the defender was not in control of the ball at any time. An obvious error had been made on the field and an OFR should have been the result.
