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.
Screenshot 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.
nottingham forest 0-0 armory
Punch:Michael Oliver
VAR:Darren England
Time: 80 minutes
Event: Possible penalty for handball
What happened: When the ball went out of play for an Arsenal corner, nottingham forest guard hail mirror It appears that he played the ball with his hand in an attempt to keep the ball in play. Within the same movement, one teammate elliot anderson Was equally keen to keep the ball in play, making contact with Aina’s back as they were both playing for the same ball.
VAR Decision: Referee calls for no penalty armory Checked and confirmed by VAR – this ruled that the ball was first played off Aina’s shoulder, while his arm was also in a natural position.
VAR Review: Referee Michael Oliver was completely unaware of any potential offense in this situation. Therefore, the decision whether the incident was worthy of an on-field review (OFR) was entirely up to VAR Darren England.
For VAR intervention in this situation, certainly with no live communication of the incident from the referee, it would require absolute proof, clear of any mitigating circumstances, that an offense has been committed by a player and the referee has missed the team.
England watched the replays several times and finally said that the ball had gone off Aina’s shoulder and onto her arm, and he also felt that Aina’s action at that time was natural.
Equally, contact from Anderson to Anna would have raised the level of suspicion that a clear error had been made. England’s final decision was to complete the check without any penalty review.
Decision: Despite the arguments offered for non-intervention by VAR, in my opinion, Forest Guard can feel fortunate that this incident did not lead to an on-field review and subsequent penalty award.
I agree that the ball was thrown off his shoulder and that Anderson’s contact may have affected Aina’s natural balance. However, none of these considerations were sufficient to negate the deliberate secondary movement of his arm to make the play and ultimately control the ball in an effort to keep the ball in play.
England apparently felt that there were too many “probabilities” in the incident and not enough “certainties” and so did not feel it met the criteria for a clear error – an outcome that would certainly divide opinion.
Manchester United 2-0 Manchester City
Punch:Anthony Taylor
VAR:Craig Pawson
Time: 10 minutes
Event: red card challenge
What happened: : Manchester United guard diogo dalot late with a challenge jeremy dokuto catch Manchester City The attacker is on his knees. Referee Anthony Taylor’s on-field decision was a yellow card, which was confirmed by VAR Craig Pawson.
VAR Decision: The call of a yellow card to Dalot by the referee for a reckless challenge was checked and confirmed by VAR – the contact was seen with hindsight and not with excessive force.
decision: Without a doubt, this will be a major talking point of this derby match – especially as it was just 10 minutes, and United won the game.
It was a lazy challenge from Dalot. The contact was unnecessarily late, high and across Doku’s knee, all considerations which would have put Pawson in a difficult position when reviewing the challenge so early in the derby game.
Taylor’s live communication, describing the challenge and subsequent level of contact as reckless rather than dangerous – understandable from an on-field perspective – would have been Pawson’s starting point in this review process.
After watching the replays, Pawson may have felt uncomfortable given the nature of the challenge. However, given the timing of the incident, he may not have felt that the replays produced enough evidence to recommend an on-field review and would have found the photographs hard to agree with the on-field decision of a yellow card as opposed to a red.
I sympathize with Pawson and understand his reasoning in this situation, but I believe a red card would be expected in this incident. The nature of the challenge was dangerous, completely unnecessary and certainly endangered the safety of his opponent.
