 |
| It was impossible to be certain that the ball hit the arm of Dango Ouattara. BBC |
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: Was it correct to rule out AFC Bournemouth's late winner against Newcastle United? And should Joelinton have seen red? Plus, two contentious penalty incidents in Manchester City vs. Ipswich Town.
What happened: Bournemouth scored what they thought was a 92nd-minute winner when Dango Ouattara appeared to head home a corner from Lewis Cook. The referee, David Coote, gave the goal, but it was checked for a possible handball by the VAR, Tim Robinson.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: It had all started so well. The judgement from the Premier League's Independent Key Match Incidents Panel, whatever stock you place on that, gave one of its cleanest report cards from Matchday 1. Only one vote out of 195 across 39 incidents said there had been a mistake. That, for the record, was for West Ham United's penalty against Aston Villa.
But the PGMOL has very little credit in the bank after a troubled 2023-24 season with a catalogue of high-profile incidents. It wasn't going to take much for the perception of failure to seep back in. Indeed, West Ham vice chairman Karren Brady even managed to stick the boot in via her newspaper column on Saturday despite an unblemished first weekend.
What the Premier League really needed was a strong August devoid of controversy (you'll never lose the contentious incidents). Yet in a few short minutes in this game, the worst of VAR reared its head again.
There's nothing more infuriating for fans than the video referee disallowing a dramatic, late winner -- especially when it's shown to be unjust.
There wasn't the definitive proof to say the ball hit Ouattara's arm where it's a handball offence. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't -- but without conclusive evidence, the VAR shouldn't be disallowing the goal. If there's doubt, it should stay with the on-field call -- and Bournemouth should have had a late winner.
It's worth discussing the background, too. Contrary to popular belief, handball doesn't start at the bottom of the sleeve. That wouldn't make any sense when some players wear long-sleeved shirts.
Then, the IFAB confused everyone by saying the "T-shirt line" should be used. (Prepare yourselves for the definition.)
What this actually meant was the point at the bottom of the armpit around the circumference of the arm. Make sense? Not really. But in effect, the IFAB was saying the shoulder area now isn't handball, when previously it was.
It's an extremely difficult place to pinpoint. Where does the handball offence start? What if some of the ball is touching below that point? Or does it need to be all of the ball? And how is it consistently determined based on different arm positions?
Few law changes in recent years have helped referees, and this made handball more difficult to judge.
Until 2021, there wasn't a definition of handball in the laws, but the whole of the arm was in general used to determine an offence. So up to 2021, this goal would have been correctly disallowed.
 |
| The IFAB released a graphic in 2021 to show where the handball offence should begin. The IFAB |
This isn't about "clear and obvious," or the new "referee's call." That only refers to truly subjective situations, like possible red cards and penalties. Handball before scoring is considered factual, ergo if the ball touches the arm, it can't be a goal regardless of the player's arm position.
But a decision that is considered factual in definition can still be subjective in application. It's possible that two officials could come to different judgements on this goal. In other leagues, the referee might be sent to the monitor to "sell" the decision: it's such a huge, match-defining moment that isn't totally clear, so the referee should make the final call even though by strict protocol it's not necessary. This has never been the case in the Premier League.
This was only the ninth game as VAR for Tim Robinson, who is a recent appointment to the Premier League list. In those previous eight matches he had one error to his name, the failure to award a penalty to Nottingham Forest against West Ham in February.
Ouattara has had goals ruled out through VAR in each of his first two matchdays.
Possible red card: Joelinton on Neto
What happened: A few minutes later, Newcastle were on the attack, and after Bournemouth goalkeeper Neto collected the ball to start a fast break, he was pulled down by Joelinton. Referee Coote cautioned the Newcastle player for unsporting behaviour. But was there a case for a red card?
VAR decision: No red card.
 |
| Joelinton pulls back goalkeeper Neto around his neck. Eddie Keogh/Getty Images |
VAR review: If there's one area that the Premier League has struggled to pin down with VAR, it's serious foul play and violent conduct. Last season, of the 24 missed subjective interventions, eight related to direct red cards.
For Coote, this may purely have looked like Joelinton dragged the 'keeper back to prevent a fast break, but the height of the challenge, with the arm to Neto's neck area as he was running, crossed the line into a dangerous action, and a red card feels a justified outcome. The VAR had decided that the referee's call to show the yellow wasn't clearly wrong, yet at the same time, Robinson had felt there had been enough evidence to rule out Bournemouth's goal.
Last weekend, Arsenal wanted a red card after Yerson Mosquera appeared to grab Kai Havertz by the throat, but with that call (no VAR intervention was unanimously supported by the KMI panel) there was a valid explanation that it was accidental as the Wolverhampton Wanderers player looked to brace his fall.
That's not the case here, as Joelinton's act was deliberate to stop Neto and did so in a way that could have caused injury to his opponent. No other sport would allow a player to stay on the field after such a challenge, and football should catch up.
Fabian Schär was sent off against Southampton last week for the smallest of headbutts, yet football's laws specifically cover a player who attempts to do this (hence Newcastle losing their appeal against the player's ban). Joelinton's actions are left far more open to interpretation in the laws when perhaps they shouldn't be.
Man City 4-1 Ipswich
Possible penalty: Davis challenge on Savinho
What happened: Manchester City were on the attack in the ninth minute when Savinho went down in the box after a challenge from Leif Davis. Referee Sam Allison ignored claims for a penalty and it was checked by the VAR, David Coote (watch here).
VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Erling Haaland.
 |
| Savinho is tripped inside the area by Leif Davis. NBC |
VAR review: Taken in isolation, this decision wouldn't have raised too much discussion. Davis' challenge on Savinho has clear merits for a penalty, with the Ipswich player not getting the ball and making some contact with the opponent. Was it enough for a VAR penalty? It's not the most clear-cut we'll see, but it was probably fair enough.
But in conjunction with the spot kick Ipswich didn't get later in the half, it plays into the narrative (just like Bournemouth vs. Newcastle) that the bigger clubs get the decisions over the perceived smaller teams.
Possible penalty: Savinho challenge on Davis
What happened: Roles were reversed in the 42nd minute as Davis broke into the area and was bundled over by Savinho. Referee Allison waved away the appeals, and again it was looked at by Coote in the VAR hub.
VAR decision: No penalty.
 |
| Leif Davis appeared to be bundled over by Savinho, but the VAR didn't get involved. Peter Byrne/PA Images via Getty Images |
VAR review: This time the VAR decided that the referee's call of no penalty was correct. Savinho's challenge was deemed to be clumsy rather than crossing the threshold for a foul.
Davis did seem to be going down anticipating contact, and his right foot did appear to go out to initiate it. But there's an argument that's trumped by the upper body, hip-on-hip contact that caused the Ipswich player to go down.
Each of these incidents have their merits for a spot kick, yet both went in favour of the bigger club.
Fulham 2-1 Leicester
Possible offside overturn: Vardy on Faes goal
What happened: Wout Faes thought he had equalised for Leicester City in the 38th minute when he headed past Fulham goalkeeper Bernd Leno, but the flag went up for offside against Jamie Vardy, who was deemed to be in the goalkeeper's line of vision. It was checked by the VAR, Jarred Gillett.
VAR decision: Goal.
VAR review: Vardy was in contact with Leno as the corner was played in, but the offside judgement only starts when Faes heads the ball. That sets the position, and from that point the actions of Vardy come into play.
The angle behind the goal showed that at the point Faes made contact Leno had a clear view of the ball, and Vardy made no attempt to play it nor did he move across the keeper's path. If Vardy had been directly in front of the goalkeeper, the goal would have remained disallowed.
Referee Darren Bond had to go to the pitchside monitor to make the decision himself as this was a subjective decision that required interpretation, unlike a standard, factual offside.
 |
| Jamie Vardy wasn't in Bernd Leno's line of vision when Wout Faes headed the ball. BBC |
Brighton 2-1 Man United
Possible offside: Garnacho goal
What happened: Manchester United took the lead at Brighton & Hove Albion in the 70th minute when Alejandro Garnacho side-footed into an empty net, with goalkeeper Jason Steele stranded. But as the Argentina international celebrated, the VAR, Chris Kavanagh, was checking for a possible offside.
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: Everyone thought this was a Garnacho goal, but replays soon showed that the ball had hit Joshua Zirkzee.
The question was, did that happen before it crossed the line? It did: The Netherlands international's knee was on the line when he touched the ball.
It seems a harsh call, because there's no defender anywhere near, and Zirkzee's position didn't make any material impact on the outcome; the ball was going to go into the net.
But as the ball touched Zirkzee before it went in, he is the goal scorer, and it's impossible to score a goal from an offside position.
A frustrating situation for Man United, but there was only one possible outcome from this factual offside decision.
 |
| The ball touched Joshua Zirkzee before the ball crossed the line, meaning it was his goal. BBC |
Wolves 2-6 Chelsea
Possible red card: Mosquera challenge on Caicedo
What happened: Yerson Mosquera was booked in the 71st minute after a strong challenge on Moisés Caicedo. Was there a case for a red card?
VAR decision: No red card.
 |
| Yerson Mosquera caught Moisés Caicedo on top of the Chelsea player's boot. Chris Lee - Chelsea FC/Chelsea FC via Getty Images |
VAR review: Mosquera ran the risk with this challenge, as he was over the ball at one point. However, contact with the Chelsea player was on top of the foot, so a booking was the correct decision. If the Wolves player had made contact with the shin, a VAR intervention from John Brooks was very likely.
Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.
- Dale Johnson, General Editor, ESPN FC
