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: How Arsenal's penalty against Newcastle United was overturned. Why Brentford's Nathan Collins escaped a red card against Manchester United. Plus, should Liverpool's goal against Crystal Palace have been ruled out for a Mohamed Salah handball, and were Brighton & Hove Albion wrongly denied a penalty at Chelsea?
Newcastle 1-2 Arsenal
Possible penalty overturn: Pope challenge on Gyökeres
What happened: Viktor Gyökeres broke through the centre in the 15th minute, and went to ground after skipping past Newcastle United goalkeeper Nick Pope. Referee Jarred Gillett pointed to the spot, and the VAR, Darren England, checked the incident. (watch here)
VAR decision: Penalty cancelled.
VAR review: When the check was first ongoing, you would be forgiven for thinking it was for a possible red card for Pope. After all, Gyökeres was brought down when through on goal. But there couldn't be a DOGSO (denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity) offence, because Pope was making an attempt for the ball. So that left only one other option: the VAR was considering the merits of the penalty.
What the referee saw is always crucial to a VAR check; England identified that Pope had got a touch on the ball, but Gillett hadn't seen this and believed that the goalkeeper had only made contact with Gyökeres. It opens the door for a review, because it's new information which could change the opinion of the referee.
- Ogden: Arsenal's attitude proves they belong in title race
- Lindop: Liverpool better learn from dramatic late defeat
- Ogden: Amorim running out of excuses: the numbers don't lie
The VAR still has to make his own judgement that this should be an overturn, because getting contact on the ball doesn't automatically mean a foul cannot be committed. It explains why there was a long deliberation at the monitor as the VAR ran through what happened, before the referee decided to cancel the spot kick. And, of course, Gillett could have stood by his original decision if he felt the contact on Gyökeres outweighed the touch on the ball.
Verdict: This isn't a case of re-refereeing -- which is changing the referee's opinion when they already have all the relevant information. But that doesn't mean it isn't controversial, and opinion will be split.
When the VAR has identified a play (defined in the laws as any touch of the ball) by Pope before he makes any contact with Gyökeres, it then becomes a question of how the goalkeeper made the challenge.
If Pope was deemed to have made an attempt to win the ball in a fair way, then the touch on the ball means there shouldn't be a spot kick.
If Pope's challenge is judged to be too strong, or reckless, then the touch on the ball wouldn't negate the award of the penalty.
We can look at a few examples across recent seasons, one including Pope himself.
Last weekend, Chelsea goalkeeper Robert Sánchez was shown a red card at Manchester United for DOGSO. He got a slight touch on the ball after it had been kicked by Bryan Mbeumo, similar to Pope on Sunday, but Sánchez caught the forward high on the leg. The touch didn't over-ride the nature of the challenge, and this was still a foul.
Last season, Sánchez conceded a penalty at Liverpool when he brought down Curtis Jones, who was sent cartwheeling over. However, the goalkeeper clearly got the ball and the collision was a natural coming together. It was overturned on review.
And in December 2020, when Pope was playing for Burnley, he came out to close down Leeds United's Patrick Bamford, and got a touch on the ball -- but then brought the striker down by wrapping both arms around his legs. The penalty was awarded on field, and upheld through VAR. Despite the touch on the ball, that was overridden by the nature of Pope's challenge.
Sánchez (vs. Man United) and Pope (vs. Leeds) made challenges which continued through to the opponent and brought them down. Sánchez (vs. Liverpool) and Pope (vs. Arsenal) stopped their movement before the collision with the attacker.
On Sunday, if Pope had come out and got a glove to the ball, rather than a boot, before going into Gyökeres there wouldn't even be a debate about the overturn. As the challenge is just a normal play for the ball, in essence it's no different to using the glove, this should be seen as a correct overturn, and would be expected to be in any league with VAR.
Possible penalty: Handball by Gabriel
What happened: Newcastle pushed forward looking for a second goal in the 85th minute when Anthony Elanga attempted to strike the ball inside the area, with Gabriel Magalhães sliding in to make a block. The ball hit the raised arm of the Arsenal defender, and the home players appealed for a penalty -- claims which were rejected by Gillett. (watch here)
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Back in September 2023, Luton Town were awarded a hugely controversial penalty when Wolverhampton Wanderers' João Gomes was penalised for handball after the ball had deflected off his leg as he made a block. The deflection didn't mitigate against Gomes' arm position, raised high above his head.
After discussing with captains and coaches at the end of the season, the Premier League changed this interpretation -- but importantly a deflection still didn't automatically mean no offence.
The guidance for the 2025-26 season has two important clauses to cover this:
- A very clear deflection that results in a significant change in trajectory of the ball should carry greater weight than arm position when considering a handball offence
- However, touching another body part before contact with the arm does not automatically mean a handball cannot be penalised
Gabriel's arm was very high as he made a slid to block Elanga's pass, so should this still be covered by the exemption?
Verdict: This drills deep into what football expects today, where a deflection is increasingly seen as the No. 1 factor; supporters do not think there should be a penalty. This was underpinned by the UEFA Football Board, featuring ex-players and coaches, which two years ago urged more consideration should be given to deflections (due to the strict application in the Champions League.)
But if this wasn't an example of a player committing a handball offence with a raised arm via a deflection, what would that be?
We shouldn't expect Gabriel to have his arm by his side, but it also shouldn't be as high as it was. So was there a "significant change in trajectory"? It didn't appear so.
What might be in Gabriel's favour is he played the ball onto Elanga, which then diverted it onto his arm -- it wasn't a direct kick by the Newcastle player.
This should be a penalty, but the deflection will mean that it won't be controversial.
Brentford 3-1 Man United
Possible red card: DOGSO by Collins
What happened: Manchester United were awarded a penalty in the 71st minute when Nathan Collins pulled back Bryan Mbeumo. Referee Craig Pawson produced a yellow card for the Brentford defender. It was checked by the VAR, Andy Madley, for a possible red card for DOGSO.
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: Matheus Cunha played a square ball into the box to Mbeumo, who was pulled back on the shoulder before he could latch onto the pass.
Referee Pawson paused for a moment while he discussed the challenge with his on-field officiating team, which suggests that the assistant had the clearest view of the pull, before pointing to the spot and booking the defender.
A yellow card would have been an acceptable disciplinary outcome had Collins been making a genuine attempt to play the ball, or challenge an opponent -- but tugging back Mbeumo isn't covered by the double jeopardy exemption.
That leaves one decision for the on-field team, and the VAR: was Mbeumo in a position where he would definitely have had a shot on goal? The VAR judged that the forward wasn't in control of the ball, so it couldn't be a red-card review.
Verdict: This took far too long: 2½ minutes from the penalty being awarded to the decision being supported, and another 2 minutes and 5 seconds after that before the whistle was blown for the spot kick to be taken. That's because Brentford made two substitutions, which they are permitted to do after the VAR check is over (as the check could have an impact on players taken off). A stoppage for a penalty is no different to any other when it comes to making changes.
Clearing the penalty should have been very easy, as should sending Pawson to the monitor for the DOGSO red card.
It's not easy to get a DOGSO red card inside the penalty area under the IFAB's current interpretations. But if you wanted a textbook example of when a player should be sent off, this was pretty much it.
Madley was correct that Mbeumo didn't have control of the ball when he was pulled back. But the law also allows for the striker to have the likelihood of taking control. Mbeumo would have had a first-time shot on goal, and Collins prevented it. That Mbeumo managed to get a touch on the ball even with the pull back should have been a good indicator of impact.
Brentford have experience of this from last season, too, when Ethan Pinnock escaped a red card when he pulled on the shoulder of Aston Villa striker Ollie Watkins. The Premier League's Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel voted 4-1 that Pinnock should have been sent off, but a narrow 3-2 vote that the VAR was right not to intervene. This was a much clearer case of DOGSO, and the KMI Panel will vote that this is the fourth VAR error of the season.
Among the other three is another DOGSO, Marcos Senesi's handball in AFC Bournemouth vs. Liverpool.
Possible foul before Sesko's goal: Mbeumo on Kelleher
What happened: Manchester United pulled a goal back in the 26th minute when Benjamin Sesko blasted the ball home from close range. As the celebrations began, Brentford's players appealed for a foul on Caoimhín Kelleher.
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: Mbeumo did move into Kelleher's space, but it was only slight and wasn't instrumental in the goalkeeper failing to get a significant punch on the ball.
The two players jumped into the same area, and Mbeumo did not interfere with Kelleher's ability to clear.
The ball fell to Sesko, who managed to lash it into the net at the third attempt.
Verdict: In the European leagues, where goalkeepers get far more protection inside the six-yard box, this may well have been disallowed.
But as we have seen on many occasions this season already, when it comes to keepers being put under pressure in the Premier League the decision is likely to stay on-field.
We saw Arsenal score against Man United when Altay Bayindir was challenged by William Saliba, and Brentford had a goal ruled out when Collins was ruled to have fouled Aston Villa goalkeeper Emiliano Martínez -- to name just two. Neither of those were logged as VAR errors, and there's no chance this will be.
Crystal Palace 2-1 Liverpool
Possible disallowed goal: Handball by Salah
What happened: Ryan Gravenberch crossed into the area in the 87th minute, and after Chris Richards messed up an attempt to clear with a stooping header Federico Chiesa was on hand to score the equaliser. However, as the ball floated in Mohammed Salah had raised his arm high above his head, and there was a strong suspicion of handball. Referee Chris Kavanagh gave the goal, and it was looked at by the VAR, Matt Donohue.
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: Salah had his hand so far above his head that if it touched the ball the goal would have to be disallowed.
This decision then came down to the VAR having definitive proof (we'll come back to this again) that it did -- but after watching several replays Donohue decided there was nothing conclusive.
Verdict: There have always been tricky decisions around handball with difficulties determining contact. In October 2023, Jordan Ayew scored a stunning goal against Tottenham Hotspur, with the VAR deciding there wasn't the evidence to penalise handball as the Palace forward controlled the ball -- that was voted to be a missed intervention by the KMI Panel.
For the Salah decision, there was one angle where it looked like the ball might have brushed the fingers -- but the Egypt international was also moving his hand as the ball went past, so it could just as easily have been misleading on that one camera. On other angles, there was definitely no deviation or change to the spin of the ball.
If the VAR doesn't feel there's evidence he cannot intervene, and that's a fair outcome here.
Had handball been identified, the referee would have been sent to the monitor to disallow the goal, but he could then also have looked at a possible shirt pull on Salah to award a penalty.
In FIFA competitions there's connected ball technology, with a sensor inside, which can detect when it has been touched -- and it would have been definitive in a case like this.
Chelsea 1-3 Brighton
Possible penalty: Challenge by Gusto on Minteh
What happened: Brighton & Hove Albion pushed forward looking for a goal in the 86th minute with the score locked at 1-1. Ferdi Kadioglu crossed from the right flank, it was flicked on by Stefanos Tzimas and dropped to Yankuba Minteh at the back post. Chelsea defender Malo Gusto tried to win the ball first, with Minteh going down holding his head. Referee Hooper ignored claims for a spot kick, so the VAR, Darren England, came into action. (watch here)
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: This decision wasn't as simple as it may have looked at first, because the punishment for a high-foot offence is determined by contact and not action.
High foot without contact is an indirect free kick, and this just isn't given against a defender inside the penalty area. When did you last see an indirect free kick in the box, other than those very rare cases where the goalkeeper handles a backpass?
The VAR cannot give an indirect free kick, so it has to be a high foot with contact for a penalty.
Much like the Salah decision, the key factor for the VAR was proof to overturn the on-field decision; England wanted an angle that showed Gusto did kick Minteh.
Verdict: There's been several situations over the years where a high foot was involved. Some have resulted in penalties, and others haven't.
In May 2024, Liverpool's Joe Gomez stretched up a foot to clear as Tottenham Hotspur's Brennan Johnson attempted to get a header on goal. The Liverpool defender got his toe to the ball and Johnson crashed into the post. There were calls for a penalty due to the height of Gomez's foot. For the VAR, John Brooks, it was crucial that there was no contact on the head of Johnson.
Brooks was also the VAR in March 2022 when Norwich City's Ben Gibson was penalised on review for a high foot on Leeds' Pontus Jansson, leading to a penalty.
In November 2021, Everton's Andros Townsend gave away a penalty against Norwich on VAR review for the same offence -- and for that game the referee was England.
So, it shows this is always a question of determining the clear proof.
Unlike with Salah, there was enough definitive evidence to send the referee to the monitor for a penalty review, as there appeared to be a movement of Minteh's head and shoulder from Gusto's boot.
But with referees being told they have to be absolutely certain to intervene in such cases, after the mistake to disallow Bournemouth's stoppage-time winner vs. Newcastle last season, you can have some sympathy that England may have erred on the side of caution.
Possible DOGSO red card: Chalobah challenge on Gómez
What happened: Andrey Santos took a poor touch, and in attempting to play a backpass only succeeded in knocking it to Diego Gómez. The Brighton player got to the ball first before he was challenged by Trevoh Chalobah, with referee Hooper judging the Chelsea defender won the ball before it ran through to goalkeeper Robert Sánchez. (watch here)
VAR decision: Red card.
VAR review: The VAR wouldn't have been able to intervene to tell the referee he'd missed a foul, as it's outside the area; it has to be a red-card offence.
Gómez got there first, and then was tripped by Chalobah. The ball ran a short distance forward, so Gómez would definitely have taken control and had an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.
Verdict: No doubt that this was a correct intervention, and to be fair to Hooper on first viewing it did look like Chalobah may have been the one to stab the ball away. As soon as the replays showed that it was Gómez that touched the ball forward, there should be no other outcome but a red card.
Surprisingly, the KMI Panel backed the decision of no red card for Wolverhampton Wanderers' Yerson Mosquera after he brought down Newcastle United's Harvey Barnes earlier this month. Just like this case, no foul was given on-field, but the KMI Panel felt it should be a yellow as Barnes didn't have control, though its judgement appears questionable -- Barnes would have immediately had ball, just like Gómez, if it hadn't deflected off the chest of Mosquera.
Aston Villa 3-1 Fulham
Possible penalty: Potential no dive by King
What happened: Josh King ran onto a through-ball in the 22nd minute, nudging the ball to the right before going to ground under a challenge from Emiliano Martínez. Referee Madley blew the whistle -- but to book the Fulham player for simulation.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: We'll often see penalties awarded when attackers use the inevitable contact from a goalkeeper, as they shouldn't be expected to avoid a barrier which an opponent creates. Indeed, stand-in Villa goalkeeper Marco Bizot gave away a spot kick against Crystal Palace when Daichi Kamada made sure he gained contact -- but stayed on his running line.
There's a difference between accepting contact and creating it, and a reason why the VAR won't intervene if the referee hasn't given a spot kick.
King shifted the ball to the right as though he was trying to go around Martínez, but then jinked to his left and was already falling when he caught the legs of the Argentina international. Such was Martínez's challenge, he probably would have still brought King down had the Fulham player moved to the right with the ball, but crucially he didn't.
Verdict: If the referee had given the penalty it might have stayed as a spot kick -- which sounds strange considering King was booked for simulation. But the VAR can only get involved if they feel the decision of no penalty is incorrect, they cannot get involved in the yellow card alone.
A harsh booking, but King was definitely trying to win the penalty by changing his running line so this shouldn't be given on VAR review.
Possible penalty: Handball by Cash
What happened: Fulham attacked again in the 24th minute, with King having a shot on goal which was blocked by Matty Cash. Fulham players screamed for a penalty, but referee Madley made it immediately clear Cash's arm was in an expected position for his movement.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: While Cash's arm was away from the body, this came in the process of him twisting to block the shot from King -- and this would be considered expected body movement.
In other European leagues, with a much harsher interpretation of handball, it would likely be given.
Verdict: After the game, Fulham manager Marco Silva was quick to make comparisons to a penalty his side conceded at Chelsea last month -- but there are important differences.
Ryan Sessegnon had jumped to block a cross, and the ball hit his front arm. It was raised in a way which was always likely to create a barrier.
For the Cash handball claim, he was moving across, turning to stop a shot and the ball hit his arm behind his back.
The expectation is that the ball hitting the rear arm is less punishable than the leading arm.
That said, the arm did block a shot, so Fulham's anger is understandable -- but this is very unlikely to be a penalty through VAR. Though there has been an increase in handball penalties this season, only one of the six has been awarded on review.
Leeds 2-2 Bournemouth
Possible disallowed goal: Offside against Struijk
What happened: Leeds United took the lead in the 54th-minute when Sean Longstaff lashed home a volley from just inside the area. Referee Michael Oliver gave the goal, but the VAR was looking at a possible offside against Pascal Struijk.
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: Struijk was clearly in an offside position, so it's about the potential impact on Bournemouth goalkeeper Djordje Petrovic.
Struijk did make a movement with the head, ducking to move from the general direction of the ball, which the VAR, Tim Wood, had to assess.
Verdict: We can make comparisons with Brentford's goal against Chelsea earlier this month, when an offside Dango Ouattara made a movement toward the ball before Fábio Carvalho scored a stoppage-time equaliser. The KMI Panel supported both the on-field and VAR decisions as the ball had passed Ouattara before the obvious action, so there was no clear impact on Reece James.
There's a case against Struijk, but with Longstaff's shot being hit with such venom, and the ball going in off the inside of the post, any impact on Petrovic was questionable. Had the shot been straight toward the goalkeeper, the offside claim would have been stronger.
Tottenham 1-1 Wolves
Possible penalty: Munetsi challenge on Palhinha
What happened: Mohammed Kudus saw a 43rd-minute shot repelled by Wolverhampton Wanderers goalkeeper Sam Johnstone, and as the ball broke to the edge of the box João Palhinha went down under a challenge from Marshall Munetsi. Referee Michael Salisbury ignored claims for a penalty, which was checked by the VAR, Stuart Attwell.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Munetsi raised a foot to try to clear the loose ball, unaware that Palhinha was coming in from behind. The Tottenham Hotspur midfielder appeared to be aware that the foot was coming up, and went down clutching his chest looking for the spot kick.
Verdict: It was unclear whether there was any contact on Palhinha, or if it was just on the line of the box. The replay angles were not really clear or conclusive, and the Portugal international went down as though he was preparing for contact. There's no prospect of a penalty in the Premier League without the proof of impact or contact.