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.
Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, with over 12 seasons on the elite list, working across the Premier League and Championship. With extensive experience at the elite level, he has operated within the VAR space in the Premier League and offers a unique insight into the processes, rationale and protocols that are delivered on a Premier League matchday.
Nottingham Forest 0-0 Arsenal
Referee: Michael Oliver
VAR: Darren England
Time: 80 minutes
Incident: Possible penalty for handball
What happened: With the ball running out of play for an Arsenal corner, Nottingham Forest defender Ola Aina seemingly played the ball with his arm in an attempt to keep the ball in play. Within the same movement, Forest teammate Elliot Anderson was equally keen to keep the ball in play, creating contact in the back of Aina as they both played for the same ball.
VAR decision: The referee’s call of no penalty to Arsenal was checked and confirmed by VAR — with it deemed that the ball was played off Aina’s shoulder first, while his arm was also in a natural position.
VAR review: Referee Michael Oliver was completely unsighted of any potential offense in this situation. Therefore, the judgment as to whether this incident was worthy of an on-field review (OFR) was entirely down to VAR Darren England.
For a VAR intervention in this situation, certainly one with no live communication of the incident from the referee, he would need to have absolute evidence, clear of any mitigating circumstances, that an offense has been committed by the Forest player and missed by the refereeing team.
England looked at the replays many times, finally saying that the ball had deflected off Aina’s shoulder and onto his arm, which he also felt was in a natural position for Aina’s movement at that moment.
Equally, the contact on Aina from Anderson would have added to the level of doubt that a clear error had been made. England’s final decision was to complete the check for no penalty review.
Verdict: Despite the rationale offered for a non-intervention by the VAR, the Forest defender can, in my opinion, feel himself fortunate that this incident did not go to an on-field review and subsequent penalty award.
I agree that the ball deflected off his shoulder and that the contact from Anderson would have had an impact on Aina’s natural balance. However, neither of these considerations were enough to negate the deliberate secondary movement of his arm to play and ultimately control the ball in an attempt to keep the ball in play.
England clearly felt that there were too many “possibles” and not enough “definites” in this incident and therefore didn’t feel it met the criteria for an obvious error — an outcome that will certainly divide opinion.
Manchester United 2-0 Manchester City
Referee: Anthony Taylor
VAR: Craig Pawson
Time: 10 minutes
Incident: Red card challenge
What happened: Manchester United defender Diogo Dalot was late with a challenge on Jérémy Doku, catching the Manchester City attacker high on the knee. The on-field decision from referee Anthony Taylor was a yellow card, confirmed by VAR Craig Pawson.
VAR decision: The referee’s call of yellow card to Dalot for a reckless challenge was checked and confirmed by VAR — with the contact deemed to be glancing and not with excessive force.
Verdict: Without doubt, this will be a major talking point of this derby match — especially as it was just 10 minutes in, and United went on to win the game.
This was a lazy challenge by Dalot. The contact was unnecessarily late, high and across Doku’s knee, all considerations that would have put Pawson in a difficult position when reviewing the challenge so early in a derby game.
The live communication from Taylor, describing the challenge and subsequent level of contact as reckless as opposed to dangerous — understandable from an on-field perspective — would have been Pawson’s starting point in this review process.
Having watched the replays, Pawson would have felt uncomfortable given the nature of the challenge. However, considering the timing of the incident, he would not have felt that the replays offered enough evidence to recommend an on-field review and would have worked hard to make the pictures concur with the on-field decision of yellow card as opposed to red.
I feel for Pawson and understand his rationale in this situation, but I believe a red card would be expected in this incident. The nature of the challenge was dangerous, completely unnecessary and certainly endangered the safety of his opponent.
