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:Anthony Taylor
VAR:John Brooks
incident 1:Potential serious foul challenge, Moises Caicedo deal with mikel merino,
Time: 34 minutes
What happened: Caicedo was late in challenging Marino. Taylor, who initially took advantage because Arsenal had possession of the ball in a positive area of the pitch and the opportunity to attack, stopped play and warned Caicedo after what he originally felt was a late careless challenge.
Moises Caicedo was shown a straight red card, and Chelsea were left with ten men. pic.twitter.com/b6MNOGkE0K
– NBC Sports Soccer (@NBCSportsSoccer) 30 November 2025
VAR decision: After watching the footage, Brooks felt that Caicedo’s challenge on Merino met the threshold of serious foul and endangered the safety of his opponent and that a red card should have been issued. Brooks recommended Taylor for an on-field review (OFR).
VAR review: After just a thought or two, Brooks may have convinced himself that intervention was needed. However, as VAR you are process driven, and to recommend an OFR, any argument must be evidence based, showing that a clear on-field error has occurred. Verbalizing the challenge, Brooks said he was late, at speed with a high level of force and with a straight leg, making contact above Marino’s ankle – it was a poor tackle.
Once Taylor had given his on-field decision of a yellow card, there was a delay while both players received treatment, Brooks explained his recommendation.
It seemed as if the entire stadium knew what was going to happen next, and after watching the footage at full speed and from two certain angles, Taylor agreed. He voided the yellow card originally given to Caicedo and issued a red card.
decision: A correct result after a positive intervention by VAR and review by Taylor. The challenge was poor, putting his opponent’s safety at risk and Caicedo was rightly sent off.
The original on-field decision by Taylor to use only caution was understandable, these types of challenges can be as difficult to process as red card offenses in real time. Taylor was well aware that the challenge had come late and was also aware of the speed at which the challenge was made, although the key elements that make it a serious foul-paying challenge – the level of force, the point of contact and the straight leg action – would not have been obvious given the mobility of both players and a warning for a careless challenge would have seemed credible.
Event 2: Challenged by potentially serious foul play, piero hincapie compete with Trevoh Chalobah,
Time: 40 minutes
What happened: Hincapie and Chalobah challenged for a high ball and, both concentrating on the flight of the ball, made contact with Chalobah’s face using his left hand and left the Chelsea defender on the floor, rolling around in agony. Taylor, who had a good view of the incident, awarded a free kick to Chelsea and warned Hincapie for careless use of the hand.
VAR Decision: VAR reviewed Hincapie’s challenge and was comfortable with Taylor’s on-field interpretation of the incident. He agreed that this was a reckless move by Hincapie and quickly completed the investigation.
VAR Review: These types of challenges can be distorted when reviewed in slow motion, so it was important that Brooks watch at full speed before analyzing the actions of Arsenal’s players and their level of contact in more detail.
Taylor’s on-field communication would have been positive and given clarity in describing what he had seen. The referee would have verbally ruled that Hincapie challenged with the leading arm, minimal force, no swinging action and an open fist. The clear description given by Taylor and matching to the pictures made it a relatively easy investigation and obvious for Brooks.
Trevoh Chalobah appears to have suffered a concussion after Piero Hincapie used his elbow to touch his face. Hincapie was only given a yellow card for the game 👀
This came just minutes after Caicedo’s red card 😅 pic.twitter.com/VEBBsppfxc
– ESPN FC (@ESPNFC) 30 November 2025
Decision: The correct call by the referee on the field, and a warning for careless play, was given in his usual calm and official manner. Brooks will not need to dwell too long on this check into VAR as the evidence clearly supports the argument for caution as opposed to anything else.
As a referee or VAR, when you want to assess situations with the use of the hand against a potential red card, you are looking for certain key characteristics in the action that are red flags and part of the consideration for a sanction. Deliberate swinging of the arm, closed fists, deliberate hard hands and players who take their eyes off the flight of the ball towards their opponent – combined with the level of force and/or cruelty – indicate acts of serious foul and form part of the decision making and VAR review process.
However, this challenge did not meet any of the criteria and Taylor and Brooks reached a good result.
Punch: Rob Jones
VAR: Matt Donohue
Event:penalty retake, Jean-Philippe Mateta Accidentally plays the ball twice while taking a penalty kick.
Time: 34 minutes
What happened: When Crystal Palace were awarded a penalty Leni Yoro Mateta fouled in the United penalty area. Mateta controlled himself and took the lead by scoring a penalty himself. However, VAR Donohue correctly found on review that Mteta accidentally played the ball twice while taking the kick; This is not allowed in law.
Jean-Philippe Mateta’s first penalty attempt was ruled a double touch, but he had no problem with Crystal Palace leading Man United’s second. pic.twitter.com/cGyGtPGnIa
– NBC Sports Soccer (@NBCSportsSoccer) 30 November 2025
decision: Corrected intervention by VAR; This was a factual situation and hence no on-field review was required.
This law was amended prior to this season as it was felt that an accidental double touch should not be penalized if the kick is successful. These types of situations occur when the kicker, in his run-up, slips and inadvertently plays the ball twice.
However, a defensive indirect free kick will also be awarded if a player deliberately plays the ball twice before it is played by another player – i.e. the ball bounces off the goalpost and the kicker plays the ball a second time.
Punch:Chris Kavanagh
VAR: James Bell
Event:Target rejected. Wolves had the opening goal jorgen strand larsen Disallowed for offside.
Time: 16 minutes
What happened: Wolves’ opening goal was disallowed by the on-field refereeing team for offside. Strand Larsson completed a nice cross from the right side, only for the assistant referee to raise his flag for offside. Referee Kavanagh and assistant referee Dan Cook determined that Wolves were the attackers. john arias Was affecting the Aston Villa keeper emiliano martinezAbility to save the ball after Strand Larsson’s shot.
VAR decision: VAR investigated the on-field decision and confirmed that Arias was in an offside position, impacting the goalkeeper’s ability to save the ball when Strand Larsson scored his own goal.
VAR review: Given the circumstances in this situation, VAR’s starting point for this review is the on-field decision and real-time communication between the referee and his assistant.
As we have seen and learned in recent weeks, only if there is a clear and obvious error in interpretation in this type of situation can VAR intervene after an on-field decision has been reached.
The messages from the field were clear and positive. Initially assistant referee Cook confirmed that Arias was in an offside position, with the striker being too close to Martínez, causing Strand Larsson’s shot to go astray, potentially impacting the keeper. Kavanagh was also in great condition, joining in on the conversation and confirming information given by his assistant.
The footage reviewed by Bell matched the real-time description by the on-field team, and he relatively quickly reviewed and approved the decision.
decision: The perfect result in this situation, and probably the most straightforward of similar incidents we’ve seen in recent weeks in the Premier League.
Arias is clearly in an offside position and absolutely impacts Martínez’s ability to save the ball. Their ducking action is similar to Andrew Robertsonis in Manchester City versus liverpool A match allows the ball to enter the goal, however, his proximity to the keeper is much less and speed is more influential on his opponent’s ability to play (save) the ball.
We have faced these types of situations, each of which has challenged different refereeing teams with slight variations. It would be interesting to know whether the PGMO wishes to review and collaborate with clubs in the Premier League under these subjective conditions, as in my opinion, this would provide a better understanding to all parties.
