Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?

After each weekend we take a look at the major incidents, to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

In this week’s VAR Review: Should AFC Bournemouth striker Evanilson have been sent off against Manchester United? Was Tyler Adams lucky not to get a red card? And should Man United have been awarded a penalty?

Bournemouth 1-1 Man United

Possible red card: Challenge by Evanilson on Mazraoui

What happened: Evanilson went to win the ball off Noussair Mazraoui in the 68th minute. It was a clumsy tackle, and referee Peter Bankes produced a yellow card to the Bournemouth striker for a reckless challenge. However, it was checked by the VAR, John Brooks, for possible serious foul play.

VAR decision: Red card.

VAR review: Bournemouth coach Andoni Iraola was furious with the decision, the second time this season he’s had a player sent off through a VAR intervention — the other being Illia Zabarnyi against Wolves in February.

In both cases, Iraola was hugely critical of the way the challenge was presented to the referee, accusing the VAR of showing the most damning evidence and making it look worse than it was. Yet the monitor is there to present the case for the prosecution; while the referee can request additional angles the initial replays will, in effect, be to support the intervention.

The controversy about Evanilson’s red card was the contact with Mazraoui came as a result of a slip. While Iraola complained about a lack of “common sense,” a slip can only be a partial consideration. Far more important is the speed, force and control. If a player goes into a tackle in an excessive manner, and that leads to contact which might injure an opponent, this would still be considered serious foul play regardless of any slip.

The VAR decided that the slip wasn’t relevant, and that Evanilson’s tackle was “two-footed with both feet off the ground.” Mazraoui’s right boot was low, but Evanilson did make contact with a degree of force. But did the VAR place too much consideration to Evanilson’s raised right foot, which didn’t touch the Manchester United defender? Calling it “two-footed” doesn’t really seem to fully match the replays.

Verdict: Perhaps this is a reaction to the missed VAR red card for Everton‘s James Tarkowski against Liverpool, so Evanilson’s raised boot and point of contact have sold the red card to the VAR. But there’s too much doubt about the nature of the challenge to consider the yellow card issued by the referee not to be a justifiable disciplinary outcome. If there’d been no VAR intervention, the challenge would have been discussed but it’s unlikely to have been so controversial.

Iraola indicated after the match the club will appeal, as they did with Zabarnyi — which the Football Association’s disciplinary commission unanimously rejected. Zabarnyi was more out of control and there was a clear buckle of the opponent’s ankle. That said, as Mazraoui’s foot wasn’t planted there would be no buckle as an indicator of force.

Brentford‘s Christian Nørgaard escaped a suspension when his VAR red card at Everton was overturned on appeal, one of four incorrect overturns logged by the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel this season.

While this may go down as a mistake by the VAR, there’s no certainty that Bournemouth will win the appeal. The former players on the FA’s disciplinary panel voted 2-1 to quash Nørgaard’s red card effectively based on how the challenge was presented to the referee at the monitor. It was a controversial judgement, and the panel member who voted to reject the appeal did so because they felt it had no place to judge the VAR process, only the merits of the challenge. Professional Game Match Officials Limited disagree with the judgement of the disciplinary panel and believe the Nørgaard dismissal was correct.

Bournemouth will probably follow Brentford’s lead and say that the VAR’s failure to recognize the slip forced a red card on the referee. That it’s a panel of former players means there’s a greater chance the appeal will be successful, but outcomes are always difficult to predict.

Man United’s Bruno Fernandes won his appeal against a red card against Tottenham Hotspur in September; coincidentally Bankes was on VAR and didn’t intervene. The Portugal international had also slipped, but key to winning the appeal was that contact on James Maddison‘s leg was with the outside of the boot, rather than the studs; Evanilson could not have the same defense. Even then, the vote of the disciplinary panel was only 2-1 in Fernandes’ favor.

Possible red card: Challenge by Adams on Garnacho

What happened: Tyler Adams was shown a yellow card in the 22nd minute for a foul on Alejandro Garnacho. The United States international was amazed he was even booked, but it was looked at for a serious foul play red card. (watch here)

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR review: While Adams got the ball, it’s the degree of speed or intensity which made this a possible red card, and it can probably be seen as a high-tariff yellow card.

This challenge looks worse than Evanilson’s, because Adams ran into it in a way which suggests a lack of control and a higher level of force. The contact on Garnacho was on the boot, and had it been any higher a VAR intervention should have been a certainty.

Verdict: Last month, Brentford defender Nathan Collins was exasperated when he was booked for a challenge on Aston Villa‘s Youri Tielemans, largely because he played the ball. Yet the KMI panel felt that it was serious foul play and the referee — who happened to be Bankes — should have produced a red card, but it didn’t reach the threshold for a VAR intervention. Adams’ tackle will likely be judged as a correct yellow card on the pitch and through VAR … just.

Possible red card: Challenge by Casemiro on Evanilson

What happened: Shortly afterward Manchester United midfielder Casemiro caught Evanilson in the chest with his studs. The referee awarded a free kick, but took no disciplinary action. It was another possible red card which the VAR had to look at.

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR review: Casemiro shouldn’t have got away without any sanction, challenging with such a high boot and not being aware of where the opponent was.

However, he didn’t go into the challenge with a straight leg, or with any degree of force, for this to be considered serious foul play.

Verdict: The VAR cannot get involved with a missed yellow card, and it didn’t reach the threshold for a red.

Possible penalty: Holding by Semenyo on Maguire

What happened: Man United had a corner in the 37th minute, and as the ball came over Harry Maguire went down claiming he was being held by Antoine Semenyo. The referee wasn’t interested, but it was checked by the VAR for a possible penalty.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: One of the key considerations for a VAR intervention is whether both players are involved in mutual holding. The three logged missed interventions for holding this season have all involved only the defending player holding the opponent, usually with both arms around the body.

Verdict: Semenyo takes a huge risk, as he has no interest in playing the ball, but the VAR isn’t likely to get involved as Maguire also has his arms around the Bournemouth player at the start of the tussle.

Wolves 3-0 Leicester

Possible penalty overturn: Foul by Sá on Vardy

What happened: Leicester City were awarded a penalty in the 70th minute when Jamie Vardy ran onto a ball through the center, with referee Sam Barrott ruling the striker was brought down by Wolverhampton Wanderers goalkeeper José Sá. Should the VAR, Graham Scott, have told the referee he’d made a mistake?(watch here)

VAR decision: Penalty stands, Vardy’s effort saved by Sá.

VAR review: Did Vardy accept the contact from Sá, or did he initiate it?

In February, Liverpool had a penalty canceled through VAR against Wolves when Diogo Jota was ruled to have placed his foot into Emmanuel Agbadou. There are clear similarities with Vardy.

Vardy shifts the ball to the left, but rather than following its path he continues on a straight line. Sá comes out but is stopping before he reaches Vardy, which means the striker has to place his right foot into the goalkeeper to present the contact.

Verdict: Vardy definitely “won” this penalty, making sure there was contact from the goalkeeper as he came out to close down the former England international.

Vardy didn’t move off his running line, so it’s understandable that the referee thought this was a penalty. But there’s a clear move from Vardy to initiate the contact, so a VAR intervention would have been a better outcome in this case.

Agbadou had slid past with his challenge before Jota initiated the contact while Sá was moving toward Vardy, which can be the only reason the spot kick was supported.

Liverpool 5-1 Tottenham

Possible goal: No offside by Szoboszlai

What happened: Liverpool thought they had equalized in the 16th minute when Luis Díaz scored from close range, but the flag went up for offside in the buildup against Dominik Szoboszlai.

VAR decision: Goal.

VAR review: It was a VAR intervention which perfectly showed the difference that semiautomated offside can make, saving a great deal of time compared to the old “crosshairs” technology.

If the VAR had been doing this manually, the official would have had to work out the position not only of Szoboszlai, but also three possible defenders in turn to decide which one created the defensive line. With the new technology, this was done automatically.

Verdict: It took 90 seconds from the goal being disallowed to the referee signaling that it had been awarded. Perhaps even more crucially, the animation to show the onside was on the TV broadcast seconds later — giving instant clarity.

Valid areas of criticism are that the animation doesn’t move directly in line with the players, and that it’s a standalone representation of the decision so doesn’t include the moment the pass was played or overlay with the match action.

Newcastle 3-0 Ipswich

Possible goal: No foul by Guimarães on Palmer

What happened: Newcastle United thought they had taken in the lead in the 22nd minute when Bruno Guimarães bundled the ball home from close range, but referee Michael Salisbury ruled out the goal for a foul on goalkeeper Alex Palmer. It was checked by the VAR, James Bell.(watch here)

VAR decision: No goal.

VAR review: Last week, Leicester City had a goal disallowed against Liverpool when Patson Daka was judged to have fouled Alisson Becker just before Conor Coady scored.

This incident was very similar, with Guimarães having a look at Palmer before moving into the goalkeeper with the intention of knocking him off the ball, rather than challenging for it.

Verdict: This is a softer decision than Daka, but once given on the field it’s not going to be overturned through VAR. The contact by Guimarães prevented the goalkeeper from playing the ball as intended.

Possible penalty: Holding by Enciso on Murphy

What happened: The game had moved into added time at the end of the first half when Jacob Murphy attempted to run into the box, but he went to the ground under pressure from Julio Enciso. Referee Salisbury allowed play to continue, and it was checked by the VAR. (watch here)

VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Alexander Isak.

VAR review: One of the missed VAR interventions for holding came in December when Nottingham Forest‘s Elliot Anderson held back Morgan Rogers (though it may not have resulted in a penalty due to early holding by Rogers).

Judging the impact of holding isn’t easy, as players are always likely to try to make the most of it.

Verdict: Fans expect holding like this to result in a penalty, it’s just that it’s pretty rare for the VAR to get involved unless it’s really obvious. This will go down as a correct intervention, but it’s inconsistent.

Crystal Palace 3-0 Aston Villa

Possible goal: No foul by Mateta on Konsa

What happened: Jean-Philippe Mateta had the ball in the back of the net in the 29th minute, but referee Anthony Taylor blew for a foul on Ezri Konsa just before the goal. The VAR, Craig Pawson, considered whether the goal should stand.

VAR decision: No goal.

VAR review: The referee waited until the ball crossed the line before blowing the whistle, which enabled the VAR to look at Mateta’s challenge on Konsa.

Verdict: It was a very soft free kick, but with the referee’s decision carrying the weight, and contact by Mateta on Konsa’s boot, Taylor’s decision wasn’t likely to be seen as clearly and obviously wrong.

Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.