Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?
After each weekend 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.
In this week’s VAR Review: Andrew Robertson saw red in Liverpool‘s draw against Fulham, plus there were possible red cards for Fulham pair Issa Diop and Andreas Pereira. Should Manchester United have been given a penalty against Man City for a foul on Rasmus Højlund? And Aston Villa had a spot-kick claim at Nottingham Forest.
Possible red card overturn: Robertson DOGSO on Wilson
What happened: The game was in the 16th minute when a ball was played forward toward Harry Wilson. It was intercepted by Robertson but he took a poor touch, which allowed Wilson to nip in front and take the ball — and the Fulham midfielder was then brought down. The ball ran to Raúl Jiménez, who scooped a shot over goalkeeper Alisson Becker only to see it cleared by Virgil van Dijk before it crossed the line.
At this point referee Tony Harrington stopped play to give a free kick for the foul by Robertson, who was shown a red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO). The VAR needed to check the foul, the DOGSO, and a possible offside against Wilson.
VAR decision: Red card stands.
VAR review: There are a few moving parts to this, which had similarities to Leon Bailey‘s challenge on Mohamed Salah before Darwin Núñez netted against Aston Villa: the key difference being that, unlike Núñez, Jiménez failed to score.
Editor’s Picks
2 Related
Referee Harrington chose to hold his whistle and allow the Mexico international to take the shot. This isn’t the same as actively playing an advantage, as that shouldn’t happen on a red-card offence. However, the referee can pause for a short time if there’s an immediate scoring chance.
If Jiménez had found the back of the net, Robertson would only have been booked as a goal was scored. As Jiménez missed, DOGSO remains active because the offence belongs to the player (Wilson), rather than Fulham as a collective. So, Liverpool were reduced to 10 men because Jiménez didn’t score.
There was no question about the foul by Robertson, and perhaps it was because of that, coupled with Wilson’s position in a central area of the pitch, which made Harrington and the on-field team sure this was a DOGSO offence.
The simple view of the incident at the time of the foul suggests a clear goal-scoring opportunity — and for that reason many will support the red card. Yet there was far more doubt once the whole picture comes into play.
Harry Wilson was fouled in a central area after stealing the ball off Andrew Robertson. BBC
The only box that was definitely ticked in the DOGSO law was the distance between the offence and the goal, then it’s Wilson’s touch which determines the quality of the goal-scoring opportunity.
Had Wilson cushioned the ball from the mis-control by Robertson, or touched it forward toward goal, DOGSO would have been certain — and indeed the ball wouldn’t have run to Jiménez.
But Wilson took a heavy touch which pushed the ball out to the left. This meant it wasn’t guaranteed that Wilson would have a likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball, with Van Dijk moving into the area where Wilson would have to run. The movement of the ball not directly towards goal adds further doubt that Wilson would be able to control and shoot before Van Dijk was able to challenge.
Harry Wilson knocked the ball to the left with a heavy touch, rather than taking himself through to goal. BBC
There was enough doubt in this situation for a VAR review to downgrade the card to a yellow. Indeed, Liverpool will probably be considering an appeal against the one-match ban which rules Robertson out of the Carabao Cup quarterfinal against Southampton on Wednesday.
So, how did Stuart Attwell come to the decision to stick with the on-field decision? VAR interventions of highly subjective decisions like DOGSO are rare. Indeed, William Saliba‘s red card for Arsenal at AFC Bournemouth this season was the first involvement by the VAR since November 2022 when Brighton & Hove Albion goalkeeper Robert Sánchez was sent off for bringing down Callum Wilson outside the area.
But that doesn’t mean interventions aren’t being missed.
The VAR’s failure to intervene to advise a red card for Aston Villa’s Ian Maatsen after he brought down Crystal Palace forward Ismaïla Sarr last month is the only logged error relating to DOGSO this season. Sarr was fouled in a similar area of the pitch (though slightly wider) but, unlike with Robertson, had played the ball toward goal.
Ian Maatsen should have been sent off against Crystal Palace. BBC
Last season, the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel ruled that the VAR should have stepped in to overturn a red card shown to Burnley’s Dara O’Shea for bringing down Everton‘s Dwight McNeil, who had overrun the ball and had no realistic chance of gaining control of it.
Perhaps the VAR was distracted from the necessary assessment of the scoring chance for Wilson by an unnecessary possible offside — which would have cancelled the DOGSO offence.
However, this was also a very subjective analysis, and if the VAR is leaving these on the field then placing the offside lines was a waste of time.
Wilson wasn’t close to Robertson when he miscontrolled the ball, and as such even if he’d been offside he couldn’t really be deemed to be challenging or influencing an opponent. Robertson’s mistake wasn’t caused by any pressure from Wilson, so the offside phase was reset at this point. Had Wilson been offside, and the red-card cancelled, that in itself would have been highly controversial.
Harry Wilson was not in close proximity to Andrew Robertson when the Liverpool player miscontrolled the ball. BBC
Verdict: A harsh red card for Robertson, as there has to be doubt that Wilson would have a clear goal-scoring opportunity because of his touch. That Robertson’s challenge was very clearly a foul and in a central position probably influences opinion on the DOGSO, but the direction of the ball and the presence of Van Dijk made it a tough sell in law.
Possible red card: Diop foul on Robertson
What happened: Issa Diop was booked in the second minute after a challenge on Robertson. Diop caught the Liverpool player high on the leg as he tried to run through to the area. The VAR checked for a possible red card.
VAR decision: No red card.
Issa Diop kicks through onto Andrew Robertson. BBC
VAR review: Diop caught Robertson with the followthrough of what was essentially a miskick to clear the ball. It was mistimed rather that being made with excessive force or intensity — though it’s understandable that challenges like this bring questions of a red card.
Verdict: As Diop was stepping in to try to clear the ball, and didn’t make heavy contact on Robertson, a yellow card was always likely to be seen as an acceptable on-field decision.
Comparisons can be made with Manchester United’s Lisandro Martínez catching Chelsea‘s Cole Palmer on the knee with light contact, which the Premier League‘s Key Match Incidents Panel deemed not to be a red-card offence either.
Possible red card: Pereira foul on Gravenberch
What happened: Fulham had another player booked in the ninth minute due to a foul by Andreas Pereira on Ryan Gravenberch. Again it was checked for a possible red card.
VAR decision: No red card.
Andreas Pereira stands on the heel of Ryan Gravenberch. Premier League
VAR review: In the latest edition of Match Officials Mic’d Up last Tuesday, referees’ chief Howard Webb talked through a variety of possible serious foul play challenges, including a foul by Leicester City‘s Wilfred Ndidi on Cole Palmer. Ndidi had stood on the heel of the Chelsea player and was shown a yellow card on the field, which was supported by the VAR.
“We’ve looked at this collectively, among the officials, talked about this, and we would prefer this to be dealt with with a red card,” Webb said of the Ndidi challenge. There are clear similarities to the Pereira incident, though perhaps there wasn’t the same intensity in the way Pereira stood, or placed weight, on the Liverpool midfielder.
To add to the confusion over such cases, the KMI Panel — which features former players — voted that while the Ndidi foul should be a red card on the field by a split 3-2 outcome, it was 4-1 against a VAR intervention.
Verdict: The expectation following Webb’s comments is we should have seen a red card, yet two fouls are never quite the same. If the KMI Panel believed that the Ndidi tackle didn’t reach the threshold for VAR, it is highly likely to do the same for Pereira.
Wilfred Ndidi was only shown a yellow card for his challenge on Cole Palmer too. Catherine Ivill – AMA/Getty Images
Possible penalty: Challenge by Dias on Højlund
What happened: Rasmus Højlund ran into the penalty area in the 64th minute and went to ground under a challenge from Rúben Dias. The Manchester United forward appealed for a penalty, but referee Anthony Taylor pointed for a goal kick after the ball ran out of play. It was checked by the VAR, who again was Stuart Attwell.
VAR decision: No penalty.
Rúben Dias attempts to get a touch on the ball ahead of Rasmus Højlund. BBC
VAR review: It was an incident which raised a lot of questions on social media, yet it was a situation that, when viewed at full speed, really was nothing more than a normal coming together between two players.
Højlund chested the ball forward, and as the ball dropped Dias attempted to get a touch on it. The Manchester City player may have got the smallest of touches, though that was hard to detect. At the same time, Højlund was leaning into Dias to gain position to control the ball.
What happened next was crucial. Did Dias deliberately hook his foot across to foul Højlund, or was it a consequence of how the two players were challenging each other? Was there really enough contact on Højlund to cause him to go to ground?
Rúben Dias makes contact with Rasmus Højlund, but was it enough for a foul? BBC
Verdict: This was always going to be a decision which remained on the field, whichever way it went. You can make a case for a penalty, but it isn’t strong enough for a VAR intervention.
Possible penalty: Challenge by Anderson on Rogers
What happened: Morgan Rogers looked to run into the area in the 35th minute and went down after apparently being tugged back by Elliot Anderson. Referee Sam Barrott decided there was no significant impact on the Aston Villa player, and allowed play to continue as Anderson came away with the ball.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: We’ve had two similar situations this season, and perhaps that has created a precedent; whether that’s the correct precedent is the real question.
In September, West Ham United‘s Crysencio Summerville was having his arm held by Chelsea defender Wesley Fofana, and the word “fleeting” entered Premier League lexicon as Stuart Attwell on VAR chose not to send the referee to the monitor. The KMI Panel voted 3-2 that it should have been given by the referee, but 4-1 against a VAR overturn.
Crysencio Summerville didn’t get a spot kick for holding by Wesley Fofana. BBC
In October, Crystal Palace’s Marc Guéhi appealed for a penalty for being held back by Liverpool’s Virgil van Dijk. That was more “fleeting” and the KMI Panel supported no penalty on the field and through VAR.
If a penalty had been awarded against Fofana, would Anderson escaped his tug back on Rogers? The challenge by Anderson on Rogers is similar to that of Fofana, though arguably not as “fleeting.”
Elliot Anderson holds onto the arm of Morgan Rogers as he enters the penalty area. BBC
That said, had the VAR, John Brooks, decided that this was a penalty to Aston Villa, it’s highly likely to have been cancelled out as Rogers was strongly pulling Anderson’s shirt first.
The fact is the VAR decided Anderson hadn’t fouled Rogers for the penalty, because the referee would have had to judge both offences at the monitor. Ergo, Barrott would have been sent to the screen for a penalty review, but would also have been shown the initial foul by Rogers.
Morgan Rogers was pulling on the shirt of Elliot Anderson before the possible penalty incident. BBC
In April, there was a monitor review for a penalty to Brighton against Brentford, but Lewis Dunk was shown to have fouled Yoane Wissa before Wissa pulled back Dunk, so the restart was a free kick to Brentford.
Verdict: Precedent clearly must have a strong influence, and we’ve now had three examples of the arm being held which haven’t been sent for review by the VAR. This was the clearest case of the three, and perhaps the way Rogers fell forwards rather than backwards influenced the VAR. Either way, the initial foul would have meant Villa wouldn’t have been given a penalty.
Possible disallowed goal: Challenge by Anderson on Cash
What happened: Nottingham Forest won the game in the third minute of stoppage time, but was there a foul in the build up by Anderson on Matty Cash?
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: It was a strong challenge by Anderson, but he gets his foot to the ball so the goal isn’t likely to be ruled out on review.
Verdict: No VAR intervention.
Elliot Anderson wins the ball in a challenge with Matty Cash. BBC
Possible penalty: Challenge by Mykolenko on Partey
What happened: Thomas Partey moved into the penalty area in the 90th minute, going down under a challenge from Vitaliy Mykolenko. Referee Craig Pawson waved play on as the Everton defender came away with the ball and the VAR, Paul Tierney, checked for a possible penalty.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: A close call for Mykolenko, who took a risk in the way he tried to win the ball off Partey. However, Mykolenko got a small touch on it before hooking it and taking possession. Without the first touch, which you could see the VAR checking on the replays, then it could be considered that Mykolenko had committed a foul before reaching the ball.
Verdict: Referee’s call and the evidence of a touch meant a VAR intervention wasn’t likely, but only just.
Vitaliy Mykolenko gets a touch on the ball when stretching out in front of Thomas Partey. BBC
Possible red card: Guimarães foul on Mavididi
What happened: Bruno Guimarães was booked in the 39th minute for a foul on Stephy Mavididi. Could it have been upgraded to a red card? And should it have been his second yellow?
VAR decision: No red card.
Bruno Guimarães catches on Stephy Mavididi on the shin. BBC
VAR review: Much like the challenge by Chelsea’s Moisés Caicedo on Tottenham Hotspur‘s Pape Matar Sarr last weekend — Jarred Gillett was on VAR for both these games — it was key that Guimarães wasn’t fully leading into Mavididi, and catches the opponent on the shin as the foot is going to ground, meaning a yellow card is an acceptable disciplinary outcome. (Caicedo wasn’t booked, but VAR cannot intervene.)
Guimarães is stepping into the tackle, rather than stretching in with an angled boot, with a low level of contact.
But Guimarães was still lucky to stay on the pitch even with a caution. He had tried to win a penalty earlier in the half following a challenge by Jannik Vestergaard, and he could easily have been booked for simulation — the referee gave a free kick to Leicester City, but for Guimarães handling the ball when he went to ground.
Verdict: Referee Tom Bramall’s decision to show a yellow card isn’t likely to be overturned; Howard Webb also supported no red-card intervention on the Caicedo tackle.
Moisés Caicedo wasn’t shown a red card for his tackle on Pape Matar Sarr. BBC
Possible offside: Al-Hamadi on Taylor goal
What happened: Ipswich Town scored a dramatic winner in the fourth minute of added time when Jack Taylor headed into an empty net, but was there a case for offside against Ali Ibrahim Al-Hamadi in front of goalkeeper Sam Johnstone?
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: We’ve been here before this season, at the same ground and the same end of the pitch.
Sam Johnstone has a clear view of the ball as it’s headed by Jack Taylor, with Ali Ibrahim Al-Hamadi having moved to the side. NBC
Manchester City had a John Stones goal ruled out for offside on the field due to Bernardo Silva being in front of José Sá, but the VAR intervened as Silva wasn’t in the Wolverhampton Wanderers goalkeeper’s line of sight.
This is a very similar situation. Al-Hamadi is offside, but at the time Taylor heads the ball — which determines the offside phase — he is not in front of Johnstone’s view of the ball.
Bernardo Silva was ruled not to be impacting Jose Sa. BBC
Verdict: Such offside decisions will remain a bugbear for Wolves fans after Max Kilman‘s goal was ruled out against West Ham United last season, the key difference being substitute Tawanda Chirewa was stood directly in front of West Ham United goalkeeper Lukasz Fabianski, and not to one side.
Wolves substitute Tawanda Chirewa was stood directly in front of Lukasz Fabianski and offside. BBC
Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.
