The video assistant referee raises controversy every week in the English Premier League, but how are decisions made and are they correct?
After each weekend, we take a look at the key events, examining and explaining the process in terms of the VAR protocol and the laws of the game.
– How VAR decisions affected every club in the Premier League in 2022-23
– The most violent moments of the VAR: Two Alisson red cards in one match
The English Premier League VAR: The Ultimate Guide
Video Assistant Referee abolished: The handball penalty sanction has been abolished
what happened: In the 16th minute, referee Peter Banks awarded a penalty kick to Tottenham Hotspur for a handball against the West Ham United defender. Aaron Cresswell.
VAR Decision: The penalty was abolished, Cresswell’s handball exception covered in the laws.
VAR review: On the face of it, this had all the hallmarks of a VAR penalty kick for Aston Villa’s handball. Lucas Denny Against Crystal Palace earlier in the season. Criswell had his arm at shoulder height and the ball hit him from close range – there is one key difference.
When Harry King Heading the ball toward the goal, it came out of Cresswell’s face and onto his outstretched arm. In Digne’s case, the ball hit his arm directly (although it was a very harsh decision made by the VAR).
The law of handball states that a player should not be penalized for making his body abnormally larger if “the contact is the result of the player deliberately playing the ball with another part of his body (against himself/herself)”.
In the directives of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) issued in the summer of 2021, a Marcos Rojo Handball when playing for Argentina against Nigeria in the 2018 World Cup (Watch here) as an example of this exception. Rojo nodded the ball on his outstretched arm. In that match, VAR sent referee Kunit Cakir to the monitor to issue a penalty, but he refused to overturn and stuck to his original decision.
FIFA expanded what could be considered a “deliberate play” at the start of the current season, As part of the updated guidelines within the Offside Act. If the ball is sent in a different path as it exits the player’s body, this should be considered “deliberate play”. Kane’s header was headed toward goal, and a swerve off Cresswell’s face took the ball away from her.
It wasn’t easy for Referee Banks to see the deviation from Cresswell’s face. And if Banks doesn’t mention this in his description of VAR, Stuart Attwell, it’s grounds for review as a clear and obvious error. This means that the VAR was correct in informing him that the penalty should be overturned.
Possible foul led to Soucek’s goal
VAR Decision: No VAR interference possible.
VAR review: VAR does not allow review of any kind of replay (other than a penalty kick). This also includes moving the ball with a free kick, not being in the quarter in the corner or in the correct position. It was up to Referee Banks and his assistant, who was close to Koval.
The IFAB VAR Guide states: “In general, incorrect restarts are not reviewed…unless they constitute a serious misappropriation of the Laws of the Game. Because they do not represent decisions to alter matches and must be discovered by match officials.”
Disallowed Target: Offside Isaac
VAR Decision: The decision was supported.
VAR review: As with all other VAR decisions this season, the process remains simple. If the lines of the attacker and defender touch, the other side will be awarded.
If this photo shows Isaacs was on the side, the attacker’s knee would be before the vertical line. VAR technology cannot conflict with the technology that is assigned to each individual step.
It’s the same for Dimari GrayUnauthorized target in favor of Everton In Leeds on Tuesday evening. The gap between the lines is more pronounced in this resolution; The attacker must be an intruder (Watch here.) As with Isaac, the assistant raised the offside flag and the VAR upheld the decision.
No two decisions are ever alike – they are two unique incidents. So it’s pointless to argue that if a situation is presented as a side order, then Isak and/or Gray should be.
Possible penalty: Ming foul on Saka
what happened: The result was goalless in the 20th minute when Bukayo Saka He went to the ground demanding a penalty after Tyrone Mings He was holding him inside the area. Referee Robert Jones waved away the penalty appeals.
VAR Decision: no penalty
VAR review: We had another incident at the weekend, when Wolverhampton Wanderers were Matthews Nunes Holding the shirt and arm of Newcastle United Sean Longstaff within the region. Then the VAR did not advise a penalty kick when he likely would have done so due to the shirt being pulled off the body.
This is a similar type of accident, in that it is covered by the law about holding onto a deductible.
Mings has one arm around Saka and he’s definitely holding on to it, but is this a crime Arsenal were supposed to get a penalty for? VAR will ask Darren England what the referee saw, if he has a clear view of possession, and then assess how much that comment affects Saka.
Key considerations include:
– If the opponent does not pay attention to the challenge on the ball.
If it is obvious that dragging or holding the ball prevents movement and the ability to challenge the ball.
VAR will also look at how Saka got to Earth; Did the Arsenal player use this contact to try to win by mistake? Will Mings be able to lift Saka and throw him to the ground with one arm? Or did Saka create this impression?
It is another of those decisions that, if made on the pitch, would likely not be overturned, but the VAR would not interfere with the autonomy when there is a clear question about Saka’s role in the incident.
Possible foul before goal: Kamara on Ramsdale
VAR Decision: No foul, goal standing,
VAR review: If you take this incident and compare it to Leicester City’s disallowed goal at Chelsea on Saturday, you would probably say the decisions should have been in the opposite direction: Villa’s goal should be ruled out and Daniel AmartyIn Stamford Bridge it is allowed.
It’s a classic example of the referee’s on-field decision bearing the weight of VAR decisions – no matter which way the referee goes, the VAR will not intervene.
There is an issue to be answered, because Kamara is blocking Ramsdale. However, it is all about how he does it. The attacking player does not have to walk away from the goalkeeper, and is allowed to stand on the ground. It becomes an offense if the attacking player moves in the goalkeeper’s path to block his path.
The law states: “Obstructing an opponent’s progression means moving into an opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within the playing distance of any player. All players have the right to their position on the field of play; being in the opponent’s way does not mean Move to the opponent’s path.”
VAR decided Jones had made no obvious and obvious mistake, but many Arsenal fans believe Ramsdale was banned from playing the ball. But in fact, Ramsdale’s responsibility was greater for circumventing Kamara in this case.
VAR Penalty: De Cordova-Reid foul on Estupinan
what happened: In the 57th minute with Fulham 2-0And the Brighton Pervis Estupinan Get down in the box after a challenge from Bobby de Cordova Red. Referee Thomas Brammal, who was in charge of his first Premier League game, allowed him to continue playing.
VAR Decision: Converted penalty Alexis MacAlister.
VAR review: An easy decision by the VAR, Paul Tierney, as Bramal did not see de Cordova Red kick through Estupinan in his attempt to win the ball. Obvious penalty.
Information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL has been used in this story.