Video assistant referee causes controversy every week Premier LeagueBut how are decisions taken and are they right?
This season, we’ll take a look at key events to examine and explain the process in terms of both VAR protocol and the laws of the game.
All screenshots photo credit: NBC
Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee with over 12 seasons on the elite list, officiating in the Premier League and Championship. With extensive experience at the elite level, he has worked within the VAR area in the Premier League and offers a unique insight into the processes, logic and protocols provided on a Premier League match day.
Punch:Chris Kavanagh
VAR:Michael Oliver
Event, virgil van dijkheaded goal disallowed for offside
Time: 38 minutes
What happened: Liverpool captain Van Dijk scored a header in the 38th minute. mohammed salah corner, though teammates Andrew Robertson Deemed to be in an offside position and interfering with the City keeper’s view Gianluigi DonnarummaTherefore assistant referee Stuart Burt disallowed the goal.
Virgil van Dijk’s potential equalizer is disallowed. Andrew Robertson was deemed to have interfered with the goalkeeper from an offside position. pic.twitter.com/yUkYaiCWY6
– NBC Sports Soccer (@NBCSportsSoccer) 9 November 2025
VAR decision: VAR Oliver confirmed the referee’s offside call and ruled no goal for Liverpool, Robertson was in an offside position and was deemed to have taken a clear action directly at the goalkeeper.
VAR review: Kavanagh’s on-field decision to impact the opponent’s approach was an offside offense and therefore formed the starting point for this review. Robertson was clearly in an offside position, although this is not an offense in itself. Oliver needed to confirm that, as described and ruled by assistant referee Burt, Robertson was affecting Donnarumma’s ability to save the ball by his position and/or actions. Impact on the opponent is a subjective judgment, and therefore a clear error in judgment by the on-field team would require a recommendation for an on-field review (OFR).
decision: This is a subjective position and will certainly cause discussion and debate. You can make a case for either outcome in this situation. Your considerations and process will include: how close the attacker was to the flight of the ball, any distracting movements made by the attacker and what effect his presence in the goal area had on Donnarumma.
My initial feeling in real time was that it was the opposite. I was concerned by Robertson’s position and actions; It must have felt uncomfortable to let the goal stand – I’m sure that feeling reflected the feeling of the officials on the pitch in real time.
Taking into account all the circumstances in this incident, the disallowance of Van Dijk’s goal was a credible and understandable decision by the on-field refereeing team. That being said, football doesn’t like what it doesn’t understand, and Noise shows that goal disallowance has fallen on the wrong side of expectations of the game. However, the decision was subjective and unlikely to be overturned by VAR.
Event: possible fine; Giorgi Mamardashvili the challenge continues jeremy doku
Time: 9 minutes
What happened: In the ninth minute, Doku appeared to be fouled by Mamardashvili, as the Liverpool goalkeeper came out of his goal to challenge the City forward. Mamardashvili misjudged his challenge and slipped on the wet grass, hitting Doku’s left boot, causing the latter to lose his balance and fall to the ground. Kavanagh initially did not award a penalty and allowed play to continue.
VAR decision: After reviewing the incident, Oliver recommended OFR for a possible penalty award to Manchester City. After several replays of the incident, Kavanagh agreed with Oliver’s explanation and awarded a penalty kick for a foul challenge by the Liverpool goalkeeper on Doku.
VAR review: It was a quick and straightforward process for Oliver to determine whether Mamardashvili had committed any fouls. Although the contact was on the lower end of the scale in terms of force, it had a definite effect on Doku’s ability to maintain his balance and possibly get a shot on goal. Oliver was right to recommend an on-field review, which is well supported by the TV evidence.
decision: This was a positive VAR intervention by Oliver and a correct rebound by Kavanagh. It was difficult for Kavanagh to recognize the foul contact in real time, as it was the Liverpool goalkeeper’s knee that slightly touched Doku’s leg, but there was contact nonetheless.
