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: Looking at two penalty claims for Newcastle United in their 3-3 draw with Liverpool. Plus, VAR learns from its mistakes as Southampton's Jack Stephens is sent off vs. Chelsea, and how assistant referees are being fast-tracked into the video chair.
Newcastle 3-3 Liverpool
Possible penalty: Quansah challenge on Isak
What happened: Alexander Isak broke into the area in the 77th minute and went down under a challenge from Jarell Quansah, The Newcastle United striker wanted a penalty, but referee Andy Madley allowed play to continue. It was looked at by the VAR, Stuart Attwell.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: On first view, it looked like a certain penalty, with Quansah placing his leg across Isak in trying to make the challenge.
However, the replay from the behind the goal showed that the Liverpool defender got a touch on the ball and, crucially, this came before he made contact with the striker.
Verdict: As Quansah didn't go through his opponent to get to the ball, and the tackle wasn't reckless in nature, there's no grounds for a VAR intervention. Indeed, if a penalty had been awarded it's likely it would have been overturned.
Bonus bit: Newcastle were furious when the referee blew for full-time as they launched a counter-attack. Guidance tells referees to allow the last attack to play out when time has elapsed: Five minutes were added, and the clock ticked to the '96th when Liverpool were going forward and the ball ended up with Newcastle goalkeeper Nick Pope.
There has to be a cut-off, otherwise you might have to allow continuous counter-attacks. Ergo, if the Newcastle attack resulted in the ball going to Liverpool keeper Caoimhín Kelleher, does the referee then have to see if Liverpool can mount a counter-attack?
The referee's intention was to blow for full-time when Pope released the ball, and you can see he already has his whistle to his mouth as it was in the air from the long throw. Madley didn't end the game when the home side had possession inside the Liverpool half.
Possible penalty / violent conduct: Van Dijk on Gordon
What happened: Anthony Gordon broke through on goal in the 38th minute and saw his shot saved by Kelleher. As the Liverpool goalkeeper ran to collect the loose ball, Gordon stood up and was barged into by Virgil van Dijk. Should there have been a penalty and even a red card? (watch here)
VAR decision: No red card or penalty.
VAR review: The ball was still in play so both possibilities are open to the VAR. If play had been dead, only the red card would have been reviewable.
There was not enough in this for a red card, as Van Dijk went into Gordon shoulder to shoulder and wasn't leading with his arm.
However, the Liverpool defender was fortunate to avoid a penalty and he escaped because the VAR ruled that the referee's judgement of a coming together wasn't clearly and obviously wrong.
Van Dijk had only one intention: to barge into Gordon as he stands up. There's no defence for a shoulder charge as the ball wasn't within playing distance.
Verdict: Attwell on VAR may have decided this wasn't a penalty on review, as it was inconsequential to the play. Granted, Gordon wasn't going to be prevented from playing the ball, but that shouldn't mean Van Dijk can get away with a clear act of knocking an opponent to the ground inside the penalty area when the ball is in play.
The Netherlands international was lucky, but with the way VAR works in the Premier League the Key Match Incidents Panel won't rule that it reached threshold for an intervention.
Possible penalty: Longstaff challenge on Diaz
What happened: Sean Longstaff chased Luis Díaz as the Liverpool forward broke into the area. Diaz went to ground but the referee waved away the penalty appeals.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Longstaff was holding onto Diaz, but this happened outside the area and didn't continue into it. If there was a foul at this point it's a free kick, and that couldn't be considered by the VAR.
Verdict: When Diaz went down inside the box it wasn't from any kind of foul contact from Longstaff, so the VAR is right not to advise a spot kick. There was a very slight pull of the shirt inside the box, but this wasn't part of the original holding and wouldn't be enough for an intervention.
Southampton 1-5 Chelsea
Possible red card: Violent conduct by Stephens
What happened: Southampton won a corner in the 37th minute. As the players moved into position, Marc Cucurella went to ground under contact from Jack Stephens. Referee Tony Harrington didn't see the incident, and it was checked by the VAR, Matt Donohue. (watch here)
VAR decision: Red card.
VAR review: Cast your mind back to August 2022 when Chelsea were playing Tottenham Hotspur. Spurs won a corner in stoppage time and, as a ball was played into the box, Cristian Romero yanked on Cucurella's hair and pulled him to the ground. Referee Anthony Taylor didn't see it and the VAR, Mike Dean, failed to send him to the screen for a red card.
This was controversial enough in itself, but a year later Dean said he hadn't done so "because he [Taylor] is a mate." Dean admits he wasn't great at being a VAR, and lasted only six months in the role before he was taken off appointments in February 2023, but his comments did damage to the reputation of referees.
Stephens will now serve a four-match ban, having already been sent off once this season. It means Southampton's captain will have been suspended for seven of the club's 18 matches.
Verdict: Pulling of the hair isn't necessarily automatically a red card, but in almost all cases it should be. Romero's actions were more violent than Stephens, but both are red cards. This time on VAR was Donohue, a referee from the EFL who has been part of the dedicated VAR training programme (more on that later) and only took on his first appointment as a video assistant in Gameweek Nine.
Play restarted with a corner to Southampton because the ball wasn't in play when the offence happened.
Leicester 3-1 West Ham
Possible goal: No foul by Soucek on Hermansen
What happened: West Ham United thought they had a route back into the game in the 58th minute when Tomás Soucek bundled home from close range, but referee Josh Smith blew the whistle for a foul on goalkeeper Mads Hermansen after the ball crossed the line. It was the second VAR check of the day for a unique VAR debutant, Neil Davies.
VAR decision: No goal.
VAR review: Soucek impeded the space of Hermansen, so even if you think it's soft there was no prospect of the VAR intervening to change the on-field decision of no goal. However, it's highly unlikely it would have been ruled out had Smith given the goal.
What's more interesting is the promotion of Davies to act as a lead VAR. He'd normally be seen running the line as an assistant referee, and has acted on VAR alongside a referee on many occasions.
For the Leicester vs. West Ham game, Davies became the first assistant to take on the role of lead VAR as part of PGMOL's development programme to find officials most suited.
Davies is a UEFA and FIFA listed assistant referee, was on the line for the 2023 FA Cup final, and Sunday's crunch Premier League game between Liverpool and Manchester City. This midweek he moved into the lead VAR chair.
Davies had one of the most experienced Premier League VARs alongside him, rather than an assistant, in Jarred Gillett.
He was followed on Wednesday by Nick Hopton, who was running the line for last season's FA Cup final and was in the VAR chair for Aston Villa vs. Brentford. He had experienced referee John Brooks alongside him.
They are the third and fourth officials to come through the programme, following former MLS referee Alex Chilowicz and then Matt Donohue who were both promoted from the EFL.
It was a busy first appointment for Davies. In only the second minute he was called into action, fittingly for an assistant, for a Jamie Vardy goal that had been ruled out for offside. It was changed on review, with Vardy level and onside through the tolerance level given to a striker.
Then, in the second half, he disallowed a Bobby De Cordova-Reid goal for offside in the buildup against Facundo Buonanotte.
Verdict: A soft on-field call, but as there was contact between attacker and goalkeeper the on-field decision wasn't going to be changed.
Everton 4-0 Wolves
Possible offside: Doucouré before Young goal
What happened: The game was in the eighth minute when Dominic Calvert-Lewin played the ball through to Abdoulaye Doucouré, who fired over the bar. The assistant raised the flag for offside, but the referee gave a free kick to Everton. How was this possible? (watch here)
Review: Not a VAR situation, but one worth explaining.
Even though Calvert-Lewin was fouled by Santiago Bueno after he had released the pass, the offside phase against Doucouré only becomes active when he receives the ball. Therefore, the referee can still come back and give a free kick on a delayed offside flag.
It was a great decision from Michael Salisbury, and led to a free-kick goal from Ashley Young.
Possible offside: Mangala on Tarkowski goal
What happened: Everton scored a second goal in the 16th minute when James Tarkowski headed home a free kick from Dwight McNeil. As the players wheeled away to celebrate there was an offside check by the VAR, Darren England. (watch here)
VAR decision: Goal disallowed.
VAR review: When incidents like this happen, we always hear comments such as "why aren't goals ruled out for blocking on every set piece?" The key factor is this isn't a foul, it's offside.
For a foul, the blocking has to be of a sufficient nature and not be normal football contact.
For offside, any contact (e.g. it doesn't have to be a foul) which prevents an opponent from being able to challenge for the ball is an offence.
As the ball was in flight to Tarkowski, Orel Mangala held Mario Lemina and prevented the Wolverhampton Wanderers player from attempting to prevent the cross reaching the goal scorer. Importantly, you don't have to think Lemina will win the ball, only that his ability to challenge for it has been affected.
Had Mangala been onside, the goal would have stood. Had Mangala and Lemina not been in the direct flight of the ball to Tarkowski, the goal would have stood.
We've seen a few examples of this over the years, with Liverpool twice on the wrong end of it in Carabao Cup finals vs. Chelsea.
In February 2022, Liverpool thought they had taken the lead Joël Matip headed home, but the goal was disallowed through VAR due to an offside Virgil van Dijk blocking Reece James.
And in February 2024, Van Dijk scored but the video assistant again stepped in as an offside Wataru Endo had stopped the run of defender Levi Colwill.
Verdict: That this is an offside offence, and that it happened directly in front of the run of the goal scorer, make this a correct VAR intervention.
Arsenal 2-0 Man United
Possible handball and offside: Saliba when scoring
What happened: Arsenal scored a second goal in the 73rd minute, when Thomas Partey headed the ball back into the six-yard area from a corner, and it went in off William Saliba. But was there a handball, or perhaps an offside? (watch here)
VAR decision: Goal stands
VAR review: The VAR, Jarred Gillett, had to check two potential factual offences.
The first was handball by Saliba. Although the ball went in off his backside, if it had first touched his arm, which was tucked into his body, the goal would have been ruled out. That was cleared.
Second, a possible offside. Partey headed the ball backwards, but the direction a ball is played has no relevance for offside -- only the position of the attacker relative (usually) to the last defender, while sometimes the ball is the determining factor. But it was quickly shown that Saliba was onside, and the goal could count.
Verdict: This took a little longer than ideal for what was a straightforward decision, but with multiple checks in one incident it's difficult to do quickly -- especially when there are many players in close proximity.
Aston Villa 3-1 Brentford
Possible DOGSO red card: Pinnock foul on Watkins
What happened: Ethan Pinnock was shown a yellow card in the 25th minute when he brought down Ollie Watkins inside the area. Referee Lewis Smith deemed Pinnock had made a genuine challenge and the VAR, Nick Hopton, checked for a possible red card.
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: The law was changed in the summer of 2023 to make it very difficult to get a red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) unless an opponent has been clearly pulled back. For example, when Southampton's Ryan Yates tugged back Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy as he was about to score.
It's possible to avoid a DOGSO red card even if you haven't attempted a tackle, because a clause was added to cover challenging an opponent, and not just the ball.
But this must be right on the borderline, and it was a big early test for Hopton, the other official who is usually running the line, in his first game as lead VAR.
Verdict: DOGSO yellow cards in this kind of situation always raise a question, as they are actually pretty rare. Pinnock had his arm on the shoulder of Watkins, and if the referee had given a red card it wouldn't have been downgraded to a yellow through VAR.
Pinnock didn't obviously pull back Watkins, as was the case with Yates on Vardy, so the referee will argue it was a challenge on the opponent for the ball. Pinnock was saved from a VAR red by the ball being close.
Possible offside: Watkins on Cash goal
What happened: Aston Villa scored a third goal in the 34th minute when Matty Cash latched onto a cross from Morgan Rogers at the back post. Referee Smith gave the goal, but was there an offside offence against Watkins as the ball came across?
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: Last weekend, Southampton were furious that they had a goal ruled out at Brighton & Hove Albion when an offside Adam Armstrong had attempted to play a ball before it went to the goal scorer, Cameron Archer.
That, of course, leads to questions when, just five days later, Villa's goal stood in similar circumstances.
Yet as discussed in Monday's VAR Review, on incidents such as this it's the decision on the field which is so important, as both outcomes -- offside and onside -- can be supportable in law.
We saw this earlier in the season when an Arsenal goal was allowed to stand when the offside Mikel Merino made a small jump to the ball before Gabriel Martinelli scored against Southampton. Decision on the field: onside.
In truth, the better on-field call for the Armstrong situation would have been a goal, as that favours attacking football but still allows the VAR to step in on a clear offence. It doesn't stop all the arguments: remember when Bruno Fernandes scored for Manchester United against Manchester City and Marcus Rashford was controversially ruled to be onside, and the VAR couldn't say that was subjectively wrong.
Verdict: Another big incident on debut for one of the assistant referees acting as a VAR.
While there's definitely an argument for offside, as Watkins does make an obvious action, Pinnock did flick the ball on in front of him. Watkins wasn't close enough to Pinnock to be considered challenging for offside, though that could have been given on-field too.
The Pinnock flick would itself have had an impact upon Kevin Schade, who was marking Cash, and that reduced the influence of Watkins' jump.
So, like all the incidents listed, the VAR stuck with the on-field decision. A good example of a subjective offside intervention was for Manchester City's winner at Wolves, when Bernardo Siva clearly was not in the line of vision of José Sá, and the on-field decision to disallow the goal was changed.
Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.