CHAMPIONSHIP CLUBS REJECT THE USE OF VAR FOR NEXT SEASON

The Video Assistant Referee will not be in use for any games involving Preston next season.

It was believed that proposals had been put forward to introduce a version of the technology from the start of next season in the Championship.

AFP via Getty Images

But it’s now emerged clubs in the second tier have voted to reject the plans.

Football Video Support (FVS), a variation of VAR which needs fewer resources and gives each coach two reviews per game, could have been brought in from August.

It comes after the Professional Game Match Officials (PGMO) gave a presentation at the EFL's annual meeting last month.

According to the BBC, the EFL subsequently contacted the clubs to canvas feedback, but it was found there was no appetite for any version of VAR in the Championship.

It’s also claimed the idea of VAR in the Championship is “closed for the foreseeable future” and the idea is unlikely to be reviewed in a year’s time.

- Craig Salmon

PREMIER LEAGUE SAYS 13 VAR ERRORS SO FAR THIS SEASON, BUT IT IS BETTER THAN LAST

February 5 – There have been 13 video assistant referee (VAR) mistakes in the Premier League so far this season, according to league bosses.

Four incorrect VAR interventions and nine missed interventions from the first 23 rounds of games have been identified.

However, the league says the accuracy of ‘Key Match Incidents’ is at 96.4% – up from 95.7% at the corresponding point last term – and the overall number of errors has gone down from 20.

“Nobody here underestimates the significance and the impact of one single error,” said Premier League chief football officer Tony Scholes.

“We know that one single error can cost clubs. Points and results can cost managers positions, potentially players their place.”

That’s been one of the main bugbears of managers and fans and in response, the league has unveiled a six-point plan aimed at enhancing the accuracy, speed, and transparency of VAR decisions.

A central component of this initiative is the potential introduction of semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) before this season concludes.

Additionally, the Premier League aims to enhance fan engagement by having referees announce VAR decisions within stadiums, a practice that could be implemented by the start of the next season.

Scholes emphasised the importance of this move, noting, “Frankly, it’s not good enough [VAR communication with supporters in stadiums]. None of us here at the league believe it’s good enough, and we have a long way to go to improve it.”

- Andrew Warshaw

THE VAR REVIEW: BOURNEMOUTH HANDBALL 'GOAL',JOELINTON RED

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

THE VAR REVIEW: BAYERN'S OFFSIDE 'GOAL' VS. REAL

Matthijs de Ligt is furious with referee Szymon Marciniak. Alexander Hassenstein/Getty Images

 Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week across Europe, and it even crops up in the Champions League.

On Wednesday night, in the second leg of the semifinal between Real Madrid and Bayern Munich, the Bundesliga club were desperately searching for an equaliser.

Real Madrid led 2-1, giving them a 3-2 aggregate lead, in the 13th minute of added time (only nine had been signalled). Bayern had to score, but they were thwarted by the offside flag and the referee blew his whistle. Bayern lost 2-1 and were eliminated.

Bayern manager Thomas Tuchel was raging, calling it a "a disastrous decision from the linesman and the referee."

So what happened, who was to blame, and how does this all work with VAR?

Real Madrid 2-1 Bayern Munich

What happened?

The ball was played into the Real Madrid area, with Noussair Mazraoui challenging Ferland Mendy. The Los Blancos defender headed the ball away, and as the ball dropped into open space in the area, the assistant, Tomasz Listkiewicz, raised his flag. Referee Szymon Marciniak immediately blew the whistle.

Thomas Müller nodded the ball to Matthijs de Ligt, and he fired into net past Andriy Lunin -- though the goalkeeper made no attempt to make a save because of the whistle, so you cannot say Bayern were denied a goal. The Real Madrid defenders may have been affected, too.

Play stopped at the whistle, so there was nothing the VAR could do. This is all about how and when the play should end from a delayed flag.

Was Mazraoui onside?

As no goal was scored, there's no VAR offside situation to judged. So we won't get the semiautomated offside visualisation for this, and we will never know for certain.

But it looks exceptionally close, and Mazraoui may well have been marginally onside to the boot of Antonio Rüdiger.

Mazraoui's act of challenging Mendy for the aerial ball is an offside offence, even though he didn't touch it.

Why did the assistant raise his flag?

Assistants are told to keep the flag down on close offsides and only raise it when a goal is scored or at the end of the attacking move.

Indeed, Real Madrid's winning goal in the 91st minute came through this route. Joselu scored from a pass by Rüdiger, and as soon as the ball crossed the line the flag went up. The goal was awarded through a VAR review, as the striker was behind the ball. That Bayern lost to a delayed flag when they were denied by a premature flag only adds to their frustration.

The VAR Handbook states that the assistant "should delay the flag if an attacking player has a 'free run' or is in a very good scoring position moving directly to, or within, the penalty area."

For Listkiewicz, Bayern never gained possession from the original pass. It's headed away by Mendy and the offside Mazraoui failed to continue the attack. Had Mazraoui collected the pass, or headed it to a teammate himself, the assistant may not have been so ready to raise the flag.

So the assistant has done nothing wrong here?

Technically no, but in a game of such magnitude and at such a crucial stage, it would have made much more sense for Listkiewicz just to hold the flag for a little longer to see what developed.

We see so many delayed flag situations that seem to be completely needless -- for instance, when a player is running to the corner or is offside by a large margin.

This is a Champions League semifinal, one of the biggest games of the season. You've got VAR, so just wait a few more seconds.

However, Listkiewicz's flag doesn't control the game.

Does the referee share any of the blame?

Absolutely. He is in charge of when the game is halted, so ultimately, the buck stops with Marciniak. We will see a number of examples across a season of an assistant raising the flag too early, and the referee takes the decision to hold the whistle just in case anything develops.

Regardless of the flag, Marciniak should not have stopped the play when the ball first fell to Müller. It should have been clear to him there was still an attacking situation.

The VAR Handbook says: "If the assistant flags for a tight/unclear offside and a player is about to score a goal, the referee should delay the whistle until the goal results so that if the AR has made a 'clear and obvious error' the goal can be allowed."

Marciniak's role is about allowing the attacking phase to complete, not to judge how close the offside may have been. This is on Marciniak.

It's not been a stellar season for Marciniak, who refereed the 2022 World Cup final and the 2023 Champions League final. Listkiewicz was also the assistant for both showpiece games.

Marciniak was the referee who wrongly awarded a VAR-advised stoppage-time penalty to Paris Saint-Germain against Newcastle United in December, which was converted and effectively resulted in the Magpies being knocked out of Europe.

But surely the attacking phase wasn't over?

The delayed flag and the attacking phase (which the VAR can review) are two different considerations.

If the assistant has identified an offside, the flag should go up at the quickest point when there's no clear attacking momentum.

However, if the assistant doesn't spot an offside, the VAR can go back through the whole phase.

A defender heading the ball away and it dropping to an opposition player doesn't count as a reset of the reviewable VAR phase. In a Premier League game between Aston Villa and Sheffield United this season, Leon Bailey had a goal disallowed through VAR as goalkeeper Wes Foderingham was being held by Jacob Ramsey. That came after a five opposition players had touched the ball -- none of which reset the reviewable VAR phase.

- Dale Johnson, General Editor, ESPN FC

VAR REVIEW: WEST HAM GOAL, LIVERPOOL OFFSIDE, ØDEGAARD HANDBALL

Getty

Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier Leagueq, 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 in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

In this Christmas edition of the VAR Review: Why West Ham United's first goal was allowed to stand against Arsenal, Martin Ødegaard's handball against Liverpool, and Harvey Elliott's disallowed goal at Burnley.

Dec. 28: Arsenal 0-2 West Ham United

Possible ball out of play: Soucek goal

What happened: West Ham took the lead in the 13th minute when Jarrod Bowen cut the ball back from the goal line for Tomás Soucek to score, but did the ball go out of play?

VAR decision: Goal stands.

VAR review: Yet again Arsenal suffered from the view of the ball being obscured by a player, meaning that VAR Craig Pawson could not be sure the whole of the ball was over the goal line.

For Newcastle United's winner against Arsenal earlier this season, the ball wasn't in view on the goal-line camera and was then hidden on a possible offside against goal scorer Anthony Gordon.

This time, it was Bowen's leg that was covering the line and blocking the view of the ball. Although the probability is that the whole of the ball had crossed the line, the VAR had no proof of this.

The ball was hidden when Jarrod Bowen cut it back from the goal line. Premier League

There's no easy solution, and it's not something that could be fixed simply by adding more cameras as there's always the chance the ball could be occluded by multiple players. Indeed, in the Bowen situation, Oleksandr Zinchenko is on the line inside the goal, so even having a camera on both sides of the pitch wouldn't guarantee a decision was possible.

Hawk-Eye in tennis judges only on predictive elements of where the ball will bounce, as it cannot be out of play when in the air. Similarly, in cricket there is a small, defined area the ball can pass through to hit the stumps. In both sports, the ball cannot be obscured.

With football, the area where the ball could go out of play is much greater, and it's likely further developments in ball tracking, which will come with semi-automated offside, are the long-term solution. But, for now, and as at the World Cup last year for Japan's goal against Spain, we have to rely on the goal-line cameras.

With Manchester United's disallowed goal against Brighton & Hove Albion, there was nothing that blocked the view down the goal line to prove the whole of the ball was out.

Marcus Rashford failed to keep the ball in play. Premier League

Dec. 23: Liverpool 1-1 Arsenal

Possible penalty: Handball by Ødegaard

What happened: Mohamed Salah looked to turn past Martin Ødegaard on the edge of the area. Referee Chris Kavanagh wasn't interested in a penalty, but the VAR, David Coote, checked it.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: This seems to be the VAR trying to find justification not to give a penalty, rather than acting on what's clear from the replays.

Ødegaard wasn't falling to the ground, so the exemption that a supporting arm touched the ball isn't applicable.

There's another clause that says there should no offence if the arm is being brought back into the body to avoid the ball -- the reason Coote gave for not awarding a penalty.

Yet Ødegaard appears to scoop at the ball. This should have been a penalty, and the Independent Key Match Incidents Panel will surely log it as a VAR error.

Martin Ødegaard should have given away a penalty for handball. BBC

Possible penalty: Alexander-Arnold challenge on Havertz

What happened: Kai Havertz moved into the penalty area in the 82nd minute and went down after being challenged by Trent Alexander-Arnold. Again the referee ignored appeals for a spot kick.

VAR decision: No penalty.

Possible penalty: Alexander-Arnold challenge on Havertz

What happened: Kai Havertz moved into the penalty area in the 82nd minute and went down after being challenged by Trent Alexander-Arnold. Again the referee ignored appeals for a spot kick.

VAR decision: No penalty.

Kai Havertz went to ground in the penalty area, but there was little likelihood of a VAR penalty. Stuart MacFarlane/Arsenal FC via Getty Images

Dec. 26: Burnley 0-2 Liverpool

Possible goal: No foul by Núñez on Taylor

What happened: Liverpool thought they had doubled their lead in the 28th minute through Cody Gakpo, but referee Paul Tierney blew for a foul by Darwin Núñez on Charlie Taylor (watch here.)

VAR decision: No goal.

Darwin Núñez was ruled to have gone into the back of Charlie Taylor. NBC

VAR review: The probability is there was no foul by Nunez, yet it's difficult to say from the replays there definitively was no contact by the Liverpool player. It's the possible contact into the back, rather than from Nunez's leg, that the VAR will have looked at.

It was difficult for the VAR, Simon Hooper, to be sure enough to say there's been a clear and obvious error.

It's highly unlikely the goal would have been ruled out had it been given on the field, so Liverpool can count themselves unfortunate.

The independent panel might say this was a refereeing error, but not clear and obvious for the VAR to get involved in.

Possible offside: Salah on Elliott goal

What happened: Liverpool again thought they had a second goal in the 55th minute when Harvey Elliott drilled home from inside the area. However, the VAR checked for a possible offside against Salah.

VAR decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR review: Salah was in goalkeeper James Trafford's line of vision, so there's a strong case for offside. The VAR then has to make a judgement on impact.

The closer an attacker is to the goalkeeper, the greater the impact and the chance the goal will be disallowed.

Mohamed Salah is offside when Harvey Elliott takes his shot. Premier League

Trafford moves to his right, away from the path of the ball, and the VAR has to consider whether the keeper would have done the same without Salah there. Whether Trafford will definitely save the ball isn't a consideration, only that his ability to do so has been impeded. It's hard to argue against that in law.

However, Salah had been pushed forward moments earlier, which led to him being offside, so shouldn't that be taken into account? The push wasn't careless, reckless or using excessive force, which is needed for there to be foul (and thus given as a penalty as Salah was inside the area.)

Mohamed Salah is in James Trafford's line of vision. BBC

Once the offside has been determined, the officials can only disallow the goal or award a spot kick. And there's no likelihood that a penalty is ever going to be awarded when the ball isn't within playing distance.

There's no consideration for a push that isn't a foul that gives a team an advantage in an offside situation.

This happens regularly on set pieces -- from attackers too as they try to beat the defensive offside line. It's just rare for it to have such a direct impact upon a goal.

Mohamed Salah gets a small push into an offside position by a Burnley defender. BBC

Dec. 27: Everton 1-3 Manchester City

Possible penalty overturn: Handball by Onana

What happened: Manchester City pushed forward in the 62nd minute, and Nathan Aké attempted a shot on goal, which was blocked by the raised arm of Amadou Onana. Referee John Brooks was uncertain of the spot kick as City's players appealed furiously, before it was awarded on the advice of the assistant.

VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Julián Álvarez.

VAR review: Everton boss Sean Dyche complained that it wasn't deliberate, yet the law is much more about making the body unnaturally bigger than it being a deliberate act. And even if there can still be an argument that an arm position is a consequence of natural movement, the higher it is raised, the more likely it will be penalised.

Onana's arm is up and it blocks a shot, which means there's always a strong chance a penalty will be awarded -- however harsh it might seem.

Amadou Onana has his arm raised, leading to a penalty. Michael Regan/Getty Images

The handball law as it is today can only bring inconsistencies in decision-making, because there are just so many clauses and exemptions for referees to take into account. Gone are the days when "common sense" decisions could be made. Onana's handball is definitely what we can term a "modern penalty."

So should Manchester United have been awarded a penalty for a raised arm by Tottenham Hotspur's Cristian Romero at the start of the season then? Romero's was out, but not at head level like it was with Onana. But you can't blame supporters for being confused at how one is a spot kick and the other isn't, with there being similarities over arm position and proximity.

The independent panel ruled the VAR was correct not to award a penalty against Cristian Romero. BBC

Dec. 22: Aston Villa 1-1 Sheffield United

Possible foul: Ramsey on Foderingham

What happened: Aston Villa thought they had taken the lead in the 59th minute when Leon Bailey fired home from Ollie Watkins' square pass, but there was a VAR check for a foul in the buildup on goalkeeper Wes Foderingham.

VAR decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR review: Morally, it feels right that this goal was ruled out because there was a clear foul on Foderingham, with Jacob Ramsey holding onto the goalkeeper's arm as he jumped to punch away the ball.

But in protocol, it's a different matter and perhaps the goal should have counted.

Five Sheffield United players touched the ball before Watkins regained possession and eventually created the goal. So, how can the attacking phase remain the same?

The first four touches would be irrelevant, as the phase can only be reset by controlled possession and not involuntary deflections or stretched plays.

Wes Foderingham was definitely fouled by Jacob Ramsey. Nick Potts/PA Images via Getty Images

Yet when George Baldock took the ball, he was able to move forward with it at his feet, taking three touches. Surely that has to be controlled possession to reset the phase, meaning the VAR cannot go back and disallow the goal for the foul on Foderingham?

But there are other clauses in the protocol: the ball still being in and around the penalty area should be considered, while the referee and VAR must take into account "what football expects."

Opinion will be split, as it was such an obvious foul on Foderingham that meant he couldn't clear the ball and that, directly or indirectly, led to the goal. But with Baldock having had control of the ball, both sides have valid arguments.

Although Ramsey was also having his shirt held by a defender, there wasn't enough in this for it to be considered a penalty.

George Baldock appears to have controlled possession to reset the phase. BBC

Dec. 27: Chelsea 2-1 Crystal Palace

Possible penalty: Foul on Nkunku by Richards

What happened: Christopher Nkunku broke into the area in the first half and went to ground, appearing to take a fresh air shot. Referee Michael Salisbury waved away the penalty appeals, and it was checked by the VAR, Chris Kavanagh (watch here.)

VAR decision: No penalty.

Christopher Nkunku clips the leg of Chris Richards as he prepares to shoot. Chelsea

VAR review: Arsenal fans will no doubt point to the red card David Luiz received against Wolves in February 2021 in similar circumstances. Willian José was through on goal and his studs clipped the knee of Luiz, who hadn't made a challenge. A penalty was awarded on the field, with the Arsenal player sent off for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

The Gunners lost an appeal against the dismissal because in law a penalty and red card isn't an incorrect decision -- yet it remains subjective.

This incident was very similar in nature, with Nkunku catching the leg of Chris Richards as he drew his foot back to shoot.

It's a penalty that would have to be given by the referee. Likewise, if Luiz hadn't been penalised, then the VAR would have got involved.

Possible offside: Jackson when scoring

What happened: Nicolas Jackson had the ball in the back of the net in the 76th minute, but had he strayed offside? (watch here)

VAR decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR review: There's a clear gap in the offside lines from when Thiago Silva played the ball forward, but the ball came off Eberechi Eze before it fell to Jackson, so how could it be offside?

The law demands that Eze's actions are a controlled, deliberate play of the ball for the phase to be reset; a block doesn't count. It's a deflection, so the phase remains active from when Silva got involved.

Eberechi Eze deflects the ball on, which doesn't reset the offside phase. Crystal Palace

Possible penalty: Eze foul on Madueke

What happened: Chelsea were on the attack in the 85th minute when the ball dropped to the edge of the area. Eze challenged Noni Madueke, with the Chelsea player going to ground. Crystal Palace looked to break but could make nothing of it. When play stopped, the VAR advised a review (watch here.)

VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Madueke.

Eberechi Eze fouls Noni Madueke. Crystal Palace

VAR review: There's a clear bend of Madueke's knee as Eze makes contact, so an easy penalty for the VAR to send to the pitchside monitor.

Referee Salisbury was probably uncertain as the two players moved their legs in a similar fashion, across each other. Eze's reaction at the point of contact made it clear he was concerned he had committed a foul, and the spot kick was the correct decision.

Dec. 28: Brighton 4-2 Tottenham

Possible penalty: Kulusevski foul on Welbeck

What happened: The ball bounced across the penalty area in the 20th minute, and just as Danny Welbeck looked to get on the end of it, he went to ground claiming a penalty. Referee Jarred Gillett played on, but a few moments later the VAR advised that play should be stopped for a review (watch here.)

VAR decision: Penalty, scored by João Pedro.

Dejan Kulusevski pulls back Danny Welbeck. Brighton

VAR review: Pushing and pulling happens inside the area all the time; for a penalty it's about judging when that crosses from normal football contact into something that impedes an opponent.

This was an obvious spot kick, with Dejan Kulusevski creating the "coat-hanger effect" by pulling the shirt out from the body. That's not the only determining factor, as whether that pulling is prolonged and whether it has a clear impact on being able to play the ball is also taken into account.

Kulusevski was booked for the foul, and Gillett would have talked through a possible red card at the monitor for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. There was just enough doubt to prevent the red card, with a possible challenge by a defender.

It's been compared to Aston Villa striker Watkins' penalty appeal against Sheffield United just before Christmas, but the two freeze frames alone don't tell the full story.

There's a case for a foul Vinicius Souza, who has a hand on Watkins, although probably not enough for the VAR spot kick. And while Souza does then have hold of the striker's shirt as he goes to ground, this isn't in the act of pulling him back from playing the ball, as happened to Welbeck.

Vinicius Souza holds Ollie Watkins' shirt, yet at this stage the striker is not challenging for the ball. BBC

Dec. 23: Tottenham 2-1 Everton

Possible foul: Gomes on Emerson

What happened: Everton thought they had pulled a goal back in the 50th minute when André Gomes won the ball off Emerson Royal, then played in Dominic Calvert-Lewin to score. However the VAR, Michael Oliver, began a check for a foul in the buildup.

VAR decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR review: It's a foul, but is there enough in it to be classed a clear and obvious error? It's on the borderline. The camera angle from behind the goal seems definitive, and it appears to show Gomes going into the back of Emerson with his knee and causing the Spurs player to lose the ball.

André Gomes was ruled to have fouled Emerson Royal. BBC