The VAR Review: Chelsea denied two penalties at Liverpool?،
The Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made and are they correct?
We look at major incidents to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol and the laws of the game.
– How VAR decisions affected each Prem club in 2023-24
– VAR in the Premier League: Ultimate Guide
In this VAR review: Chelsea had two penalty requests refused at Anfield and Liverpool were awarded a spot kick, as well as possible handball penalties for Everton and Aston Villa.
Possible penalty: Van Dijk fouls Gallagher
What happened: The match was underway in the sixth minute when Raheem Sterling played a ball into the box, which was collected by Conor Gallagher. He advanced and collapsed as he passed Virgil van Dijk. The ball reached goalkeeper Alisson Becker and referee Paul Tierney signaled that there was no foul (look here.)
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR Review: The first of three penalty incidents for VAR, John Brooks. There is contact between the defender and the attacker, but Van Dijk does not really challenge Gallagher. That's not to say there can't be a shot on goal, but there aren't enough for a VAR decision.
There are similarities to the penalty Liverpool sought against Fulham for Illia Zabarnyi's challenge on Diogo Jota. VAR did not intervene in this matter, a decision unanimously supported by the Premier League's independent Key Match Incidents Committee.
If the referee had given the penalty, it would have stood – but it is not a clear and obvious error not to award a spot kick. We'll hear about this several times in the game.
Possible handball: Jota when scoring
What happened: Liverpool took the lead in the 23rd minute when Jota collected a pass from Conor Bradley to blast past Djordje Petrovic, but did the ball hit his arm before scoring? (look here)
VAR decision: The objective is maintained.
VAR Review: VAR looked at the goal from multiple angles, but there was no evidence the ball hit Jota's arm. Even a simple touch would have led to the goal being disallowed for an accidental offensive handball.
It appears the ball came off Jota's chest before bouncing back for the Portuguese player to score.
Possible foul in the build-up to Bradley's goal: Jota on Chilwell
What happened: Bradley doubled Liverpool's lead in the 39th minute, but there was a scuffle between Jota and Ben Chilwell in the build-up (look here.)
VAR decision: The objective is maintained.
VAR Review: If the VAR had judged this to be a foul, then the goal could have been disallowed, as it would have affected Chilwell's ability to contest the ball and stop the goal.
However, much like Jarrod Bowen's penalty claim for West Ham United against Sheffield United last month, both players stood before one player fell to the ground. There will be no VAR intervention in these circumstances, and indeed the independent panel also unanimously supported the Bowen decision.
Jota was just onside, but if he hadn't been, the goal would have been disallowed for obstructing another player. According to the law of offside, it does not have to be a foul, it is only an impact on the opponent who cannot get involved in the play.
Possibility of cancellation of the penalty: foul by Badiashile on Jota
What happened: Liverpool were awarded a penalty in the 45th minute when Van Dijk assisted the ball inside the area to Jota, who fell to the ground under a challenge from Benoit Badiashile. Referee Tierney pointed to the spot the VAR checked (look here.)
VAR decision: The penalty stands, missed by Darwin Núñez.
VAR Review: The second kicking incident, this time given by the referee and once again highlighting the importance of the decision on the field. It's pretty mild, but once the VAR has clear evidence that Badiashile made contact with the top of Jota's boot, he won't be brought down.
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 in the box. The France international fell to the ground after a challenge from behind by Van Dijk, but referee Tierney ignored calls for a penalty and play continued (look here.)
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR Review: This is where VAR will always frustrate fans, as two seemingly similar incidents – Jota and Nkunku – can have opposite results.
There was definitive contact from Van Dijk on Nkunku's right boot, but as this was not deemed significant enough to bring the Chelsea player down as it did, it did not cross the threshold of a VAR intervention. Yet was there any difference in the contact on Jota for the penalty which was reward ?
If the penalty had been awarded by Tierney, VAR would not have overturned it. As always, VAR does not intend to create consistency in decision-making on the pitch, but only to intervene in the event of an obvious error.
Nkunku didn't help his case by the manner in which he fell to the ground, which did not seem proportionate to the level of contact, turning several times after his fall.
There are several similar examples throughout the season, including Arsenal's claim for a spot-kick against Aston Villa when Douglas Luiz kicked the boot of Gabriel Jesus. This proposal was also supported by the Independent Group.
Another example was the little touch on Eberechi Eze from Everton defender Jarrad Branthwaite. Again, a decision that was not recommended by VAR and supported by the independent panel due to the manner in which the Crystal Palace striker crashed.
And in October, Liverpool's Luis Díaz wanted one when he felt caught by Everton defender Nathan Patterson. Again, the way he went down did not match the level of contact and there was no VAR intervention.
Possible penalty: Robinson handball
What happened: Everton won a free kick in the 24th minute, which allowed James Tarkowski to hit the bar. The ball then went out to Antonee Robinson before Timothy Castagne stabbed it off the goal line. Referee Thomas Bramall allowed play to continue while VAR David Coote checked for a possible handball.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR Review: “Could you get it? You could do it,” Everton manager Sean Dyche said after the match. “If it's against you, you're not happy. If it's for you, you take one.”
It summed up not just this situation but most handball situations, with coaches, players and fans often confused as to when a penalty would be awarded.
For Robinson, it's all about the natural body position for what he's doing: coming back towards goal and preparing for a hooked clearance on the line. When the ball hits the bar, he has little to no time to react and even though his arm wasn't right next to him, it wasn't well on the side, nor was he blocking a cross or a shot.
The result would have been different if Robinson's arm was high or fully extended to the side. Without a deliberate movement of the arm, it is unlikely that there will be any VAR intervention in this type of situation.
Possible penalty: Handball by Burn
What happened: Matty Cash shot on goal in the 26th minute. The ball hit Dan Burn, with calls for a penalty. Referee John Brooks dismissed the claims and this was verified by VAR, Andy Madley.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR Review: The perfect example of the ball hitting a defender's arm while he is close to the body.
Burn can't do anything to avoid the ball, and he doesn't create a barrier for the shot by sticking his arm out.
Parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.
