<
        >

          VAR review: Was Sunderland's goal vs. Chelsea offside? Did Gakpo deserve a penalty?

          play
          Michallik: Chelsea were chaotic in loss vs. Sunderland (1:37)

          Janusz Michallik reacts to Chelsea's 2-1 loss to Sunderland in the Premier League. (1:37)

          • Andy Davies, Special to ESPN
          Oct 27, 2025, 08:00 AM ET

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

          This season, 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.

          - VAR review: Should Man United have had a penalty vs. Brighton?

          Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, with over 12 seasons on the elite list, working across the Premier League and Championship. With extensive experience at the elite level, he has operated within the VAR space in the Premier League and offers a unique insight into the processes, rationale and protocols that are delivered on a Premier League matchday.

          Chelsea vs. Sunderland

          Referee: Andy Madley
          VAR: Craig Pawson
          Incident: Possible offside offence in Sunderland's winning goal
          Time: 90+3 minutes

          What happened: Sunderland scored a late winner at Stamford Bridge, with the goal creating some debate as Lutsharel Geertruida was stood in an offside position, directly between goal-scorer Chemsdine Talbi and Chelsea goalkeeper Robert Sánchez.

          VAR decision: VAR's review process in this situation was to ascertain, firstly, whether Geertruida was in an offside position when the ball was played and if yes, was he interfering with his opponents' line of vision, or impacting his ability to save the ball?

          VAR review: With Geetruida clearly standing in an offside position, and in the Chelsea goalkeeper's line of vision, VAR's review would have centered around the position of Chelsea defender Reece James in relation to the Sunderland attacker. Referee Madley, who had moved into the correct position to make a judgment, was comfortable that Geetruida was clearly positioned directly behind James, therefore negating any impact on the goalkeeper's line of vision, and that no offside offence had therefore been committed. VAR would have used a number of angles, using a still picture on each to confirm Madley's interpretation of the situation.

          Verdict: There were unusual circumstances in this incident, given the Sunderland attacker's position directly behind James at the point the ball was played by Talbi. This was a correct interpretation of Law 11 (Offside) by both the on-field referee and confirmed by the VAR. This type of situation always creates debate, which is understandable. However, the game does not want to see goals disallowed for this type of scenario.

          play
          2:19
          How can Arne Slot fix Liverpool's Premier League form?

          Gabriele Marcotti and Stewart Robson discuss how Arne Slot can turn around Liverpool's bad form after another defeat in the Premier League.

          Brentford vs. Liverpool

          Referee: Simon Hooper (1st half), Tim Robinson (2nd half)
          VAR: Chris Kavanagh
          Incident: Possible penalty; Nathan Collins challenge on Cody Gakpo
          Time: 44 minutes

          What happened: Gakpo received a return pass from Florian Wirtz inside the Brentford penalty area. With the ball at his feet, Gakpo drew Collins into making a challenge, smartly shifting the ball with the outside of his right boot and ensuring Collins made no contact with the ball. Gakpo went to ground expecting a penalty to be awarded, but referee Hooper was positive that no foul had occurred and play continued.

          VAR decision: Having reviewed the challenge, VAR Kavanagh agreed that contact by Collins on Gakpo did not meet the threshold for a penalty kick to be awarded and completed the check quickly.

          VAR review: Match communication from referee Hooper would have formed the basis for this review. Hooper would have described the challenge with clarity; he was in a good position with all relevant information available. He would have been aware that Collins hadn't played the ball, however his rationale that the level of contact did not meet the threshold of a foul was evident on the replayed footage.

          Verdict: This was a correct on-field decision by the referee and a relatively straightforward review for the VAR team. In these situations you are looking for a clear foul action by a defender on an attacker before you consider a penalty award. In this scenario, Gakpo felt contact and went to ground believing it to be a foul, as opposed to it being one. Players will often go to ground in these situations, with the aim of putting the referee under pressure to make a decision.

          play
          1:02
          Slot admits he's surprised by extent of Liverpool's drop off

          Arne Slot speaks after Liverpool's fourth consecutive defeat in the Premier League.

          Incident: Free kick award, overturned to a penalty kick.
          Time: 56 minutes

          What happened: Brentford were awarded a penalty following a VAR intervention, which adjudged Liverpool captain Virgil van Dijk to have fouled Dango Ouattara on the line of the penalty area. The original decision by referee Robinson was a free kick, as he felt the foul contact occurred outside the penalty area.

          VAR decision: Having viewed all available angels, the VAR, Kavanagh, determined that foul contact by Van Dijk occurred on the line of the penalty area. Therefore a penalty should have been the final decision and not a free kick, as originally awarded by Robinson.

          VAR review: This decision was factual as opposed to subjective, and therefore an on-field review was not required and information was fed directly into the referee.

          Verdict: A positive and factual overturn by the VAR.