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.
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.
Ref: andy madley
wise: stuart atwell
Time: 23rd minute
Event: Possible fine on Arsenal
What happened: Arsenal thought they should have been awarded a penalty in the first half Michael Keane appeared to step on Achilles kai havertz As soon as the Arsenal attacker entered the penalty area. Referee Madley ignored the appeals, while VAR agreed with the on-field decision.
VAR Decision: The referee’s call to award no penalty to Arsenal was checked and confirmed by VAR, with Keane’s contact on Havertz deemed minimal.
VAR Review: VAR had to consider whether replays showed a different story to what referee Madley described or his reasoning as to why a penalty was not awarded on the field. Madley clearly did not consider Keane’s contact sufficient to stop Havertz in his tracks, describing the level of contact as minimal and having no impact on the Arsenal attacker’s ability to continue his run and potential shot on goal. VAR agreed with the on-field reasoning and approved the decision without any penalty.
Decision: It is difficult to explain the non-intervention by VAR in this situation because the contact by Keane, although not at a high level, was impacting Havertz’s ability to progress and get a shot on goal. By stepping on Havertz’s Achilles who is ahead of the defender, the level of contact is irrelevant and should be considered a foul in this type of situation. I’m not convinced by the official reasoning for not giving a penalty, I thought referee Madley considered the contact to be normal, two players made accidental contact because they were both running in the same direction and no one made contact, which makes sense in real time. However, the photographs showed a different dynamic and an on-field review should have been recommended and a penalty given.
a note on chelsea Huddle and Paul Tierney
chelsea 0-1 newcastle united
Forming a crowd in the center of the pitch is a practice that Liam Rosenior’s team has used before games in recent weeks. But this time referee Tierney was standing at the center circle and was later Caught in the middle of Chelsea’s dilemmaCatching the match ball.
The more I see referee Tierney wandering around the Chelsea team, the less confident I am in his decision to stand and hold the match ball.
Referees do their homework, Tierney knew Chelsea were going to be in trouble and with Newcastle facing kick-off, his mindset was to be proactive and defuse any potential issues with the opposition. However, his decision to stand over the match ball with Chelsea players locking arms around him and not moving into a more neutral position is difficult to understand and unnecessarily escalated the profile of the situation.
The Chelsea players did not appear to be concerned by Tierney’s presence as they continued with their pre-match ritual, in fact I would have been surprised if Tierney had not given them prior warning in the pre-match meeting that he would take up the position if Newcastle decided to start the match. Despite this, the optics weren’t looking great for PGMO, the Premier League or Tierney.
This was a ridiculous situation that could and should have been managed differently.
