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: Why Liverpool‘s penalty at AFC Bournemouth was allowed to stand, why Aston Villa‘s “equalizer” at Wolves was ruled out for offside, and comparing a possible penalty for Brighton to another conceded by Arsenal‘s William Saliba.

Bournemouth 0-2 Liverpool

Possible penalty overturn: Foul by Cook on Gakpo

What happened: Andrew Robertson played a ball through the center for Cody Gakpo to run on to in the 27th minute. As the Liverpool forward got into the area, he went down and appealed for a penalty after contact by Lewis Cook. Referee Darren England pointed to the spot and it was checked by the VAR, John Brooks.

VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Mohamed Salah.

VAR review: It’s the decision that raised the most questions over the weekend, but once contact had been identified, there was no prospect of a VAR overturn.

The rearview replay showed that Cook had knocked Gakpo’s left boot with his left leg when running across, which led the Netherlands international to clip his own heels and go down.

We’ve seen a number of similar penalties given on the field in recent seasons, most notably in February 2021, when Arsenal’s David Luiz was judged to have caused Wolverhampton Wanderers attacker Willian Jose to go down when through on goal.

Also, a month earlier in that season, Paul Pogba was awarded a penalty for Manchester United at home to Aston Villa when his trailing leg was clipped by Douglas Luiz.

Villa boss Dean Smith insisted Pogba had “tripped himself” — which was also the original claim about the Gakpo spot kick — but the VAR had evidence of a touch on Pobga’s boot as Luiz tried to close down space around the France international.

Luiz was sent off for his challenge, as Jose was through on goal. While Gakpo might have been about to shoot, he was out wide on the field and probably wasn’t in a strong enough position for this to be deemed an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

Verdict: Edge cases such as this always raise questions about how VAR allows inconsistency to fester, because if the referee hadn’t given this as a penalty, the VAR wouldn’t have stepped in.

It’s not a “clear and obvious” error to give a penalty when there’s the evidence that Cook caused Gakpo to lose his footing. However, because it was difficult to immediately identify the contact and with no challenge being made, it also wouldn’t be a “clear and obvious” error to allow play to continue.

Bonus bit

It was deep into stoppage time when the referee dropped the ball for Curtis Jones to restart play just outside the center circle. The Liverpool midfielder didn’t touch the ball, and it was stolen off him by Marcus Tavernier. The Bournemouth player dribbled upfield and fired a shot over the bar.

Should Tavernier have been allowed to do this? And would the goal have stood if the shot had gone in?

On a dropped ball, it’s live as soon as it touches the ground. There’s no requirement for a player on the receiving team to touch it for play to be active.

If an opponent is the necessary four meters away when the ball hits the ground, they are within their rights to challenge and, as Tavernier did, steal the ball.

However, had Tavernier scored, it could only count as a goal if goalkeeper Alisson Becker had gotten a touch, or if it had taken a deflection. That’s because if a dropped ball enters the goal without touching at least two players, play is restarted with a goal kick. Tavernier also could have made a pass, and it would be a goal. If so, there would have been no VAR intervention and the goal would have correctly stood.

Wolves 2-0 Aston Villa

Possible goal: Subjective offside against Rogers on Semedo

What happened: Aston Villa thought they had an equalizer in the 54th minute when a short free kick was played along the ground and into the area to John McGinn, who squared for Donyell Malen to net from close range. However, the assistant raised his flag immediately for offside in the buildup against Morgan Rogers. It was checked by the VAR, Matt Donohue.

VAR decision: No goal.

VAR review: When goals are disallowed for such offences, there’s usually a misconception that it’s for a foul. Indeed, Wolves have already benefited in such circumstances this season, when a Southampton goal was chalked off for a foul by Mateus Fernandes on Nélson Semedo in November.

Rather than being a foul, this is interference from an offside position. The bar is much lower, as a player simply isn’t allowed to influence play or impact an opponent when they were offside.

Rogers was clearly offside when the free kick was taken, so the VAR must consider the level of interference by the Aston Villa player on Wolves defender Semedo.

Rogers ran behind Semedo and came into contact with the Portugal international, but Semedo then moved to try to stop the delivery from McGinn and got there just too late.

Donohue must ask whether Rogers’ actions impacted Semedo’s ability to challenge for the ball and, as he was the one to attempt to cut out the cross, it can’t be seen as a “clear and obvious” on-field error.

The replay from behind the goal shows Rogers put an arm in the back of Semedo. This couldn’t be seen as a foul, but it can be seen as impacting play from an offside position.

In November, Southampton had a goal from Cameron Archer ruled out by the on-field officials at Brighton because an offside Adam Armstrong had attempted to flick at the ball. The Premier League’s Key Match Incidents Panel ruled that while that goal should have counted, it wasn’t a clear enough error for VAR to get involved and overturn the offside.

Arguably, there are similarities in the level of the offside offence committed by Rogers, but this one is likely to be judged as correct on the field, too.

However, the VAR’s decision to disallow Nikola Milenkovic’s goal for Nottingham Forest against Southampton last month was logged as an error by the KMI Panel, as it was deemed Chris Wood did not obviously impact an opponent within the move.

Verdict: It’s perhaps a harsh decision and, like the Liverpool penalty, one that may not have come via a VAR intervention — but it’s not going to be changed on review, either.

Referee Andy Madley didn’t need to go to the pitchside monitor to assess the subjective offside because the decision had been given on the field. He would have viewed it himself only had the VAR felt the goal should be allowed to stand.

Possible foul in the buildup to Cunha goal: Bueno challenge on Rogers

What happened: Santiago Bueno tackled Rogers deep inside his own half in the sixth minute of stoppage time, with the Aston Villa player going to ground. Hwang Hee-Chan picked up the loose ball and played a pass over the top, which Matheus Cunha ran on to and scored. But was there a case for a foul in the buildup?

VAR decision: Goal stands.

VAR review: As the challenge led to Wolves gaining possession and scoring pretty much immediately, the goal could have been ruled out through a VAR review.

The key aspect for the VAR was that Bueno clearly won the ball; while there was contact with Rogers, it was not enough for an overturn in the Premier League.

Indeed, Villa conceded a goal against Nottingham Forest in similar circumstances in December, when Elliot Anderson challenged Matty Cash just before Anthony Elanga scored a stoppage-time winner. The KMI Panel unanimously voted it was a correct decision on the field and in the VAR room not to give a foul.

Verdict: In Europe’s other top leagues, with a lower threshold for a foul, this may well have been ruled out on review. But as the Premier League encourages a greater level of physicality, an intervention wouldn’t be expected.

Nottingham Forest 7-0 Brighton

Possible penalty: Challenge by Milenkovic on Welbeck

What happened: Brighton & Hove Albion were on the attack in the 57th minute when Danny Welbeck went to ground after a clash of heads with Nottingham Forest defender Nikola Milenkovic. Referee Simon Hooper allowed play to continue before stopping it for the head injury. The VAR, Paul Tierney, checked for a possibility penalty.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: This incident was always likely to lead to comparisons with the spot kick awarded to Brighton against Arsenal last month, when Saliba was penalized for trying to win the ball but headed the face of João Pedro.

While Welbeck was the player down holding his head, it was the Brighton striker who caused the clash as he moved his head backwards to prepare to control a bouncing ball.

Verdict: There was no movement by Milenkovic to head the ball, unlike with the Saliba example, so it was correct both on the field and through VAR not to give a penalty.

Possible penalty overturn: Foul by Lamptey on Gibbs-White

What happened: Nottingham Forest were awarded a penalty in the 68th minute when Morgan Gibbs-White was wrestled to the ground by Tariq Lamptey, and referee Hooper pointed to the spot. It was checked by the VAR (watch here).

VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Chris Wood.

VAR review: Lamptey had both arms around Gibbs-White and had no interest in trying to challenge for the ball. It was a clear non-footballing action, and Gibbs-White did not get involved in mutual holding, so there was no prospect of a VAR intervention.

Indeed, attackers have more chance of winning a decision if they actively do not engage with the defender — otherwise it could be seen as holding offences by both players.

Verdict: With the amount of holding going on in penalty areas this season, there should be more spot kicks given for this kind of action.

Indeed, all three missed penalty interventions logged by the KMI Panel this campaign have been for holding: Elliott Anderson on Morgan Rogers (Forest vs. Villa), Alexis Mac Allister on Carlos Soler (West Ham United vs. Liverpool), and Wes Burns on Jan Paul van Hecke (Ipswich Town vs. Brighton.)

Possible handball: Sangaré before Williams goal

What happened: Forest scored a sixth goal in the 89th minute after a goalmouth scramble saw Ibrahim Sangaré fall on the ball before Neco Williams scored. There was a possible handball offence by Sangaré (watch here).

VAR decision: Goal stands.

VAR review: The law which covers accidental handball before a goal was changed a few years ago to apply only to the goal scorer.

So had Sangaré got up and scored the goal, it would have been ruled out. But as it fell to Williams, the goal stands.

Arsenal’s Kai Havertz saw what would have been a late winner against Aston Villa ruled out for accidental handball last month, when it deflected in off his arm. If, for example, the ball had come off the crossbar and a teammate had followed up to score, the goal would have counted.

Verdict: The goal could have been ruled out only had there been a deliberate handball offence by Sangaré, but it appeared to hit him in the armpit area before coming off his arm as he landed.

Everton 4-0 Leicester

Possible penalty: Challenge by Vestergaard on Beto

What happened: James Garner played a through-ball to Beto in the 34th minute. Jannik Vestergaard came across to make a challenge and appeared to bundle into the Everton striker. Referee Darren Bond waved away the penalty claims and play continued. It was looked at by the VAR, Stuart Attwell.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: This could have gone either way on the field.

Beto looked to latch on to the pass and Vestergaard came in with a strong challenge from the side which, on another day, could have been seen as a foul.

Verdict: A classic case of a challenge that isn’t going to be given as a penalty through VAR in the Premier League, but wouldn’t be overturned if it was given.

Manchester United wanted a spot kick against Manchester City in December for a similar sort of tackle by Rúben Dias on Rasmus Højlund. The KMI Panel voted 3-2 that the referee was correct not to give the spot, and 4-1 that it shouldn’t be a VAR intervention.

Brentford 0-2 Tottenham

Possible penalty: Collins challenge on Moore

What happened: Tottenham Hotspur broke forward in the 34th minute, with Dejan Kulusevski feeding Mikey Moore inside the area. The Spurs forward went down under pressure from Nathan Collins, but referee Jarred Gillett ignored appeals for a penalty.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: It was a quick check from the VAR, Graham Scott.

When Moore received the ball, two hands were on him from the Brentford defender. However, the attacker seemed to go to ground very easily after feeling Collins’ contact.

Verdict: The defender clearly took a risk, but no penalty was the correct outcome from the VAR.

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