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: Chelsea had two penalty claims turned down at Anfield while Liverpool were given a spot kick, plus possible handball penalties for Everton and Aston Villa.
Liverpool 4-1 Chelsea
Possible penalty: Van Dijk foul on Gallagher
What happened: The game was in the sixth minute when Raheem Sterling played a ball into the box, which was collected by Conor Gallagher. He stepped forward and went to ground when moving past Virgil van Dijk. The ball ran through to goalkeeper Alisson Becker, and referee Paul Tierney signalled there was no foul
VAR decision: No penalty.
Did Virgil van Dijk foul Conor Gallagher? BBC
VAR review: The first of three penalty incidents for the VAR, John Brooks. There is contact between defender and attacker, but Van Dijk doesn’t really make a challenge on Gallagher. This doesn’t mean there can’t be a spot kick, but there’s not enough in this for a VAR decision.
There are similarities with the penalty Liverpool wanted against Fulham for Illia Zabarnyi’s challenge on Diogo Jota. The VAR didn’t intervene in that case, a decision unanimously supported by the Premier League’s Independent Key Match Incidents Panel.
If the referee had given the penalty it would have stood — but it’s not a clear and obvious error to give no spot kick. We’re going to hear about this a couple more times from the game.
Possible handball: Jota when scoring
What happened: Liverpool took the lead in the 23rd minute when Jota ran onto a pass from Conor Bradley to finish past Djordje Petrovic, but did the ball touch his arm before scoring?
VAR decision: Goal stands.
The ball hits Diogo Jota’s chest as he runs through to score. BBC
VAR review: The VAR had a look at the goal from several angles, but there was no evidence of the ball touching Jota’s arm. Even a brush of it would have led to the goal being disallowed for accidental attacking handball.
It appears the ball came off Jota’s chest before it bounced forward for the Portuguese to score.
Possible foul in the buildup to Bradley goal: Jota on Chilwell
What happened: Bradley doubled Liverpool’s lead in the 39th minute, but there was a tussle between Jota and Ben Chilwell in the buildup
VAR decision: Goal stands.
Ben Chilwell and Diogo Jota are holding each other before Conor Bradley’s goal. BBC
VAR review: If the VAR had judged this as a foul then the goal could have been disallowed, as it would have affected Chilwell’s ability to challenge for the ball and stop the goal.
However, much like the Jarrod Bowen penalty claim for West Ham United against Sheffield United last month, there was holding taking place by both players before one player fell to the ground. There won’t be a VAR intervention in these circumstances, and indeed the Independent Panel unanimously supported the Bowen decision too.
Jota was just onside, but if he hadn’t been the goal would have been disallowed for interfering with another player. In the offside law it doesn’t have to be a foul, only impacting on an opponent from being able to get involved in the play.
Possible penalty overturn: Badiashile foul on Jota
What happened: Liverpool were awarded a penalty in the 45th minute when Van Dijk helped the ball on inside the area to Jota, who went to ground under a challenge from Benoit Badiashile. Referee Tierney pointed to the spot, which the VAR checked (watch here.)
VAR decision: Penalty stands, missed by Darwin Núñez.
Benoît Badiashile makes contact with Diogo Jota’s boot. BBC
VAR review: The second spot kick incident, this time given by the referee and again underlining the importance of the on-field call. It’s on the soft side, but once the VAR has clear evidence of Badiashile making contact with the top of Jota’s boot it’s not going to be overturned.
Possible penalty: Van Dijk on Nkunku
What happened: Chelsea were on the attack in the 73rd minute when Mykhailo Mudryk played a short pass to Christopher Nkunku inside the area. The France international went to ground after a challenge from behind by Van Dijk, yet referee Tierney ignored the penalty claims and play continued
VAR decision: No penalty
Virgil van Dijk kicks Christopher Nkunku’s boot, but was it enough for a penalty? BBC
VAR review: This is where VAR will always frustrate fans, because two seemingly similar incidents — Jota and Nkunku — can have opposing outcomes.
There was definite contact by Van Dijk on Nkunku’s right boot, but because it wasn’t deemed significant enough to make the Chelsea player go down in the way he did it didn’t cross the threshold for a VAR intervention. Yet was there any difference to the contact on Jota for the penalty that was awarded?
If the penalty had been given by Tierney, the VAR wouldn’t have overturned it. As ever, VAR doesn’t intend to create consistency of decision-making on the pitch, only to intervene when there’s a clear error.
Nkunku didn’t help his case by the way he went to ground, which didn’t seem to be commensurate with the level of contact, rolling over a few times after falling.
