The VAR Review: Dias on Vicario; Newcastle’s ‘handball’ goal،
The Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week, but how are decisions made and are they correct?
After each weekend we review the major incidents to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game. This week is a special FA Cup fourth round.
– How VAR decisions affected each Prem club in 2023-24
– VAR in the Premier League: Ultimate Guide
In this week's VAR review: Manchester City's winning goal against Tottenham Hotspur was hotly debated due to a possible foul on goalkeeper Guglielmo Vicario, and should Luton Town's opener have counted against Everton? Plus, a possible handball in the build-up to Newcastle United's opening goal at Fulham.
Possible goal disallowed: Dias challenge on Vicario
What happened: Manchester City won the match in the 88th minute when Nathan Aké headed the ball home from close range after a corner, but VAR checked a possible foul on goalkeeper Vicario de Rúben Dias (look here.)
VAR decision: The objective is maintained.
VAR Review: We have recently seen a few situations where there has been contact between an attacking player and a goalkeeper before a goal.
Each time, VAR chose not to overturn the referee's decision, a result supported by the Premier League's independent Key Match Incidents Panel.
Consistency concerns the objective of the VAR intervention, rather than the final decision.
Earlier this month, Luton Town scored a controversial injury-time equalizer at Burnley, with the home side adamant that goalkeeper James Trafford had been fouled by Elijah Adebayo. There was a move towards the goalkeeper by the striker, with the independent panel deeming a foul to be the best decision on the pitch – but this did not meet the threshold of a clear error and obvious for VAR.
Arsenal's second goal against Crystal Palace last weekend was more applicable to Vicario's situation, when Ben White appeared to obstruct goalkeeper Dean Henderson as he attempted to clear a corner. The panel unanimously supported the referee's decision, saying “all contact is initiated by Henderson.”
Likewise on Friday, Vicario and Dias pushed each other before Kevin De Bruyne's corner was delivered. When the cross arrived, Dias was in front of the goalkeeper and held on. If the City player had made an obvious block, changing position to prevent the goalkeeper from contesting, that would have been a clearer reason for VAR to get involved.
Man City experienced a similar situation earlier this season against Liverpool, when Manuel Akanji was penalized for having an arm on Alisson before Dias scored. This goal was canceled on the field; again, VAR had upheld the referee's decision rather than getting involved.
Only one goal has been disallowed by VAR for a goalkeeper foul this season, when Aston Villa's Jacob Ramsey held the arm of Sheffield United goalkeeper Wes Foderingham as he attempted to clear.
Goal disallowed possible: foul by Barkley on Calvert-Lewin
What happened: Everton took the lead in the 39th minute when Vitalii Mykolenko deflected the ball into his own net following a Luton corner. However, Dominic Calvert-Lewin insisted he was pushed in the back by Ross Barkley at the near post. Was there reason to refuse the goal?
VAR decision: The objective is maintained.
VAR review: It will divide opinion, but you can understand Everton boss Sean Dyche's frustration. Numerous refereeing incidents went against his team, including the VAR red card to Calvert-Lewin in the FA Cup final round, which was overturned on appeal by the Football Association.
Barkley has both hands on Calvert-Lewin's back, although replays suggest any pushing was negligible. If you're Dyche and you see two hands on your player's back, affecting his ability to stop the corner from going past the near post, you're going to be wronged. But was there really enough for VAR to get involved?
The best comparison comes from Newcastle's winning goal against Arsenal in November, when Joelinton had both arms on defender Gabriel's back before Anthony Gordon scored. The independent panel ruled that VAR was right not to get involved at St James' Park, and although it does not sit to assess FA Cup matches, it would likely reach the same conclusion.
That will be of no consolation to Dyche, who accused VAR of re-refereeing after Calvert-Lewin had a goal ruled out at Tottenham for a foul in the build-up to Andre Gomes on Emerson Royal (the independent panel backed this intervention, too.) It's hard to argue that there's a huge difference between this kind of foul and the one that wasn't penalized for Luton's opener on Saturday. Is a push really that different from a barge when assessing a foul and VAR intervention?
Despite all of Dyche's complaints, Everton don't have a VAR error recorded against them this season.
Goal possibly disallowed: Handball before scoring
What happened: Newcastle took the lead in the 39th minute through Sean Longstaff, but was there reason for the goal to be disallowed for a handball in the build-up?
VAR decision: The objective is maintained.
VAR review: The handball law was amended in summer 2021 to stipulate that accidental offensive handball can only be penalized if it is the scorer, in order to reduce the number of goals ruled out by VAR for arm touches apparently without consequence.
The ball was kicked against the arm of Bruno Guimarães, but it had gone into his body; To be penalized, the Brazil international would need his arm to be extended or to have made a deliberate movement towards the ball. Neither was present, so the VAR, Tony Harrington, was right not to intervene.
In September, the ball accidentally hit Newcastle's Gordon's hand before he scored a goal against Sheffield United for Longstaff – meaning the midfielder has twice benefited from a 'handball assist' this season.
Coincidentally, a high-profile handball incident occurred against Fulham and caused huge controversy in March 2021 – the day before the handball law change was announced. The ball was kicked against Mario Lemina's arm, and it fell for Josh Maja to score – but VAR had to disallow what was an equalizing goal against Tottenham for an accidental offensive hand by the player who assisted the goal. Lemina had her arm at her side and could do nothing to get the ball to her.
Fulham actually benefited from the change in law last season against Crystal Palace. The ball hit Aleksandar Mitrovic's arm before Tim Ream scored and the goal was awarded.
Aston Villa, however, were on the wrong side of the law of accidental offensive handball in their 0-0 draw at Chelsea on Friday. Moussa Diaby saw his shot in the 12th minute blocked, the ball then came off the arm of Douglas Luiz before entering the net at Stamford Bridge; as he was the scorer this had to be ruled out by VAR.
Possible penalty: Handball by Burn
What happened: In the 56th minute, Kenny Tete collected the ball inside the box and tried to cross it, but the ball pushed Dan Burn away. Was there reason to sanction a penalty for handball?
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR Review: It's unclear if the ball hit Burn's arm or if it was his chest.
But the defender had his arm tucked into his body, so there was no reason for a VAR penalty.
Possibility of cancellation of the penalty: foul by Bogle on Pedro
What happened: Brighton & Hove Albion were awarded a penalty in the 27th minute when João Pedro was brought down by Jayden Bogle. Referee Sunny Sukhvir Gill pointed to the penalty spot with the decision verified by VAR Darren Bond.
VAR decision: The penalty is scored by Pedro.
VAR Review: At first glance, it looked like Pedro went down very easily following Bogle's challenge.
Yet the reverse angle clearly showed the striker had been kicked in the calf by the Sheffield United player. This decision was never going to be changed when VAR was reviewed.
Possibility of canceling a penalty: Bogle handball
What happened: Brighton were awarded a second spot-kick in the 50th minute when Bogle challenged Evan Ferguson, with the referee ruling that the ball had hit the Sheffield United player's raised hand.
VAR decision: The penalty is scored by Pedro.
VAR Review: You don't have a better example of a defender having his arm in an unnatural position, outstretched in relation to his body. Why Bogle chose to attempt to contest a high ball with both arms in the air is anyone's guess, but any contact in this situation was going to result in a penalty.
Bogle protested his innocence and the VAR checked to make sure the ball actually hit the arm, but there was no evidence to suggest the on-field call for a kick was incorrect.
