Video assistant referee causes controversy every week Premier Leaguebut i also uefa champions league. So, how are decisions made 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.
Punch:Danny McCallie
VAR:Dennis Higgler
Time:37 minutes
Event:Arsenal awarded a penalty
What happened:As Arsenal attacker Victor Gyokres The defender received the ball neatly in the Atlético penalty area david hanko Appeared to collide with the back of an Arsenal player. With Gyökeres on the field, referee Danny McCallie pointed to the spot and awarded Arsenal a penalty for a careless foul challenge.
VAR Decision: VAR did not need to think too much about this challenge and immediately recognized the on-field decision as correct.
Judgment/Insight: Yes, it was a correct on-field decision and there was no VAR intervention. Hanko’s challenge was clumsy and foolish. Gyöckeres’ clever physical positioning gave Atlético’s defenders no chance to play the ball and this was a poor decision from the Atlético player.
The first attack on the armory.
Victor Gyökeres was clinical from the spot to put the English side in front 💥 pic.twitter.com/IBVZRLgvQC
– CBS Sports Golazo ⚽️ (@CBSSportsGolazo) 29 April 2026
Time:55 minutes
Event:Atletico Madrid given penalty after handball offense by Arsenal defender ben white.
What happened: a shot on goal by Atletico Madrid Marcos Llorente Strikes Arsenal’s Ben White on the arm. However, a deflection off the defender’s shin before the ball hit his hand created a level of debate. The on-field referee ultimately awarded a penalty after looking at the VAR screen.
VAR Decision: Another relatively quick review by VAR in this incident, and on this occasion, they felt there was a clear error in not giving an on-field penalty. VAR Higgler felt that White’s hand was in an unnatural position relative to his body movement, and regardless of the deflection off the defender’s shin, which was negligible, he felt it met the criteria for a handball offence. After watching the replay himself, McCallie agreed with the VAR interpretation and awarded a penalty to Atlético Madrid.
Judgment/Insight: a clearer decision than Controversial penalty awarded To Paris Saint Germain Last night, looking at the position of White’s hand when the ball hit him. The Arsenal defender’s arm was extended away from his body, and his body was clearly unnaturally large, putting him at risk of being penalized for a handball offence. In this case the deflection is irrelevant. This was negligible, barely affecting the trajectory of the ball, but the position of the hand negated any deflection considerations. The fine was the right decision.
In contrast to last night’s decision, this incident will be penalized in the Premier League for a handball offence.
what a hit 😤💥
Julian Alvarez scores the equalizer for Atletico pic.twitter.com/peQF9AJ7SO
– CBS Sports Golazo ⚽️ (@CBSSportsGolazo) 29 April 2026
Time: 81 minutes
Event: VAR reversal; Arsenal’s penalty award was overturned via VAR review.
What happened: Atletico Madrid defender Hanko appeared to outwit Arsenal Eberechi Eze In the penalty area, referee Makeli pointed to the spot and awarded a penalty to the Gunners. Overturning awards only after VAR and on-field review by the referee.
VAR Decision: After reviewing multiple replays, VAR felt there was not enough contact by an Atlético defender to award a penalty, using the argument that any contact at the edge was minimal, with the Arsenal attacker going over Hanco’s leg while the defender had clearly committed a tripping offence.
VAR recommended an on-field review, where after watching replays, the referee agreed with VAR and disallowed the penalty, restarting play with the ball dropped to the Atlético keeper. jan oblak.
Judgment/Insight: I thought it was a penalty in real time and after watching the replays I still have the same opinion. Hanko was late in his challenge, making contact with Eze’s boot without making any contact with the ball and the contact meeting the criteria for a reckless trip.
The on-field referee was well aware of the incident and was positive about his body language and the original decision.
It is difficult to understand and explain the rationale as to why there was VAR intervention in this incident. The footage clearly shows there is foot-on-foot contact, made due to a late challenge by a defender and certainly not a clear and obvious error – this should be considered a poor bit of officiating.
Equally, once the referee is looking at the screen, he has all options open to him. I can only guess that VAR ruled the referee out of the decision, highlighting that the contact, in their opinion, was minimal and the attacker’s motivation was to make it a penalty situation as opposed to a foul.
In my opinion, both officials were wrong, and Arsenal should be unhappy with the result.
No penalty ❌
VAR saved Atletico from the third penalty in this match pic.twitter.com/M86rgRf4DG
– CBS Sports Golazo ⚽️ (@CBSSportsGolazo) 29 April 2026
