Video assistant referees cause controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made and are they correct?
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 Davis 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 in 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. ,andydaviesref
Ref: Anthony Taylor
wise: michael oliver
Event: Penalty appeal for Manchester United
Time: 15th minute
What happened: Amad Diallo ran away to the Brighton area while drawing Maxim de Cuper In creating a challenge. As Diallo cut inside the defender, De Kuyper stuck out his right foot to dribble past the Manchester United attacker. Referee Taylor was unaffected by the appeal and allowed the game to continue.
VAR Decision: After observing the incident, VAR investigated and awarded a non-penalty. Oliver cited that De Kuyper had touched the ball while challenging and agreed with the on-field decision to award no penalty.
VAR review: “Clear and obvious” errors are the benchmark for VAR intervention and Oliver, after looking at it from different angles, would have felt that this incident did not meet the necessary criteria. Oliver explained in his review process that he was happy that De Cuyper touched the ball when challenging and was therefore comfortable with the original decision on the field.
#Munbha – 15′
The referee’s decision not to award a penalty to Manchester United was checked and confirmed by VAR – leading to it being ruled that De Kuyper had played the ball.
– Premier League Match Center (@PLMatchCentre) 25 October 2025
decision: An interesting situation and another penal decision where “touch on the ball” appears to be a significant factor in whether a foul is committed or not. Manchester United Vs. chelsea ,robert sanchez), Newcastle vs. armory ,Nick Pope), And fulham vs arsenal (kevin) There are three other such incidents that have occurred in recent weeks.
A touch on the ball should not always negate that a foul challenge has been made and, although I agree with all three of these previous decisions given their circumstances and individual context, I believe Taylor was wrong on this occasion and should have awarded a penalty.
This was no challenge to De Cuyper’s ball, it was a lazy attempt to trick his opponent; Any touch on the ball was minimal and the result of his careless action, as opposed to a measured challenge.
However, once Taylor decided not to give the penalty, the decision should not have prompted an on-field review by VAR as it was not a “clear and obvious” error. The decision was subjective and Taylor’s live communication would have matched the pictures in the VAR hub.
1:53
Moreno: Man United have developed an aura of confidence
Alejandro Moreno reacts to Manchester United’s 4-2 win against Brighton in the Premier League.
Event:Potential foul play by luke shaw But Georginio Rutter,
Time:61st minute
What happened: Brian Mbeumo Scored United’s third goal after Brighton lost possession in the center of the pitch. But Brighton were left aggrieved by a holding offense by Shaw on Rutter in the build-up to the goal. Referee Taylor had a good opinion of the incident and did not feel it met his threshold for committing an offense against him or the criteria he had set. Premier League Match official.
VAR decision: Like all goals, VAR checks all phases of the game leading up to the goal being scored, checking in real time for any violations clearly missed by the match officials. Shaw’s contact on Rutter was of course reviewed and it was felt that the on-field decision to allow the game to continue was the correct outcome, as the hold was minimal, not sustained and did not directly impact Rutter’s ability to continue playing.
VAR review: Communication with the referee in real time would have created the framework for this VAR investigation for possible foul play. Taylor’s approach was very good and his communication made it clear that he had seen Shaw’s hold, although it was not sustained enough or had an impact on Rutter’s ability to play and he was comfortable that no offense had been committed.
For VAR to intervene in this type of incident, they would need to see clear evidence that the picture Taylor read of the incident was not factual contrary to the pictures presented.
decision: Despite Brighton’s frustrations, this was a good decision in real time by Taylor and equally positive non-intervention by Oliver.
To penalize a player for a holding offense in this key area of the field of play, the referee team is looking for the action to meet one of the following criteria for it to be considered a foul: Is the hold sustained, dominant or extreme?
Shaw’s hold in this incident was minimal, fleeting with little effect on Rutter’s ability to continue the game. In fact, the decision to stop was Rutter’s, as he was expecting a free kick.
It is very important to view these types of situations in “real time”. A still photo will show holding to the point where you question how can this not be a holding crime? However, in real time, you can clearly see that Shaw’s level of grip was minimal and, in my opinion, just “normal football contact”. In fact, the same words may have been used by both Taylor and Oliver to sum up the incident.
