[ad_1]
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: Should Manchester United defender Lisandro Martínez have been sent off for his challenge on Chelsea‘s Cole Palmer? Why was Crystal Palace‘s stoppage-time winner at Wolverhampton Wanderers disallowed? And are Ipswich Town being hard done by with VAR?
Possible red card: Martínez foul on Palmer
What happened: The game was into the third minute of stoppage time when Palmer tried to lift the ball past Martínez, with the United defender sticking out a leg to stop his opponent. Referee Rob Jones tried to play an advantage, but brought it back after Chelsea quickly lost possession. Martínez was shown a yellow card but the VAR, Michael Salisbury, checked for a possible red.
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: Red cards for serious foul play through VAR aren’t a rarity in the Premier League, but it’s been a long-standing issue for the video referees to get the balance right.
Last season, there were 10 serious foul play red cards through VAR, though the Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel ruled a further six should have been given. It’s a success rate of 62.5% on this area of law, with cases of serious foul play making up a quarter of the 24 missed subjective interventions.
We’re yet to see a VAR red card for serious foul play this season, and Martínez can consider himself fortunate. It’s only the Premier League’s high bar for an intervention — the root cause for a VAR second guessing — which prevented Jones being sent to the monitor (we’ll come back to this discussion again shortly.)
Indeed, it’s that same high bar which led to Bruno Fernandes‘ red card against Tottenham Hotspur not being overturned. It usually creates a situation where a VAR can look for any evidence to support the on-field decision rather than being more forthright about what they can actually see.
Martínez caught Palmer high around the knee area with his studs showing, and only a lack of any real force could have led the VAR to judge a yellow card was a justifiable disciplinary outcome.
High contact with studs, in a way which couldn’t realistically be considered a genuine attempt to play the ball, could easily be seen as endangering the safety of the opponent. And if Jones had produced a red card, the VAR wouldn’t have told the referee he’d made a mistake. We saw this last season, when Arsenal‘s Fabio Vieira was sent off in a 3-1 win over Burnley. It’s a perfect example of why VAR isn’t going to give consistency of decision-making when the on-field call has the weight.
With the Premier League’s high bar, it’s often too easy to support an on-field call of a yellow card (or in the case of Fernandes, the red.)
Verdict: Just about the correct call for no VAR intervention, taking into account the process in the Premier League.
Possible penalty overturn: Sánchez foul on Højlund
What happened: Man United were awarded a penalty in the 70th minute when Robert Sánchez brought down Rasmus Højlund. It was checked by the VAR. (watch here)
VAR decision: Penalty stood, scored by Fernandes.
Rasmus Højlund is fouled in the box and Bruno Fernandes scores from the spot to give Man United the lead at Old Trafford!
📺 USA Network | #MUNCHE pic.twitter.com/xaeP98K1mh
— NBC Sports Soccer (@NBCSportsSoccer) November 3, 2024
VAR review: As with the penalty Newcastle United were awarded against Manchester City earlier this season, when Éderson brought down Anthony Gordon, once the VAR has identified contact between the on-rushing goalkeeper and the boot of the attacker there isn’t going to be an intervention.
Højlund gets a toe to the ball first, and Sanchez does catch the striker.
Verdict: No VAR intervention.
Possible penalty: Issahaku challenge on Chaplin
What happened: Ipswich Town had a free kick in the 77th minute. After a melee inside the area the ball fell to Conor Chaplin. Fatawu Issahaku came running out and collided with the Ipswich player, who went to ground. Referee Tim Robinson allowed play to continue, which resulted in Kalvin Phillips fouling Ricardo Pereira and picking up his second yellow card. The VAR, Stuart Attwell, checked for a possible penalty. (watch here)
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Ipswich have endured a baptism of fire to life with VAR. Mark Ashton, the club’s chairman and CEO, pulled no punches in an interview on Friday, saying “we will not go quietly into the night,” and that “[PGMOL chief refereeing officer] Howard [Webb] is going to see my number flashing up a hell of a lot more.” And those comments came before Saturday’s events.
All clubs will, naturally, feel they should be getting more decisions than they do. Perhaps for Ipswich — the only club in the division who hadn’t experienced VAR before — expectation levels needed to be lowered and they need to realise that subjective interventions don’t happen all that often.
No club can ever get every decision they want — because most calls sit in the subjective grey area where either decision is acceptable; there’s no definitive right call.
Ipswich sit at the bottom of the VAR overturns table this season, with three going against them and not one in their favour. But while Ipswich may feel aggrieved, the KMI Panel has judged that all three decisions were correct, and there hasn’t been a missed VAR intervention which should have gone their way.
Many are going to disagree, but while the challenge on Issahaku could be a penalty on the field, it probably doesn’t meet the Premier League’s high bar for an intervention.
Last season, Brentford‘s Ivan Toney was bundled over in the box by Liverpool defender Andrew Robertson. A penalty wasn’t awarded, which was backed up by the VAR. The KMI Panel unanimously said that it should have been given as a spot kick on the field by referee Michael Oliver, but voted 4-1 that the VAR was right not to get involved.
Against Man City at the start of the season, Ipswich were denied a penalty and the KMI Panel ruled that while it should have been awarded by the referee, the VAR was right not to get involved — it would be no surprise if the same decision was reached on this too. It leaves Ipswich with grounds for complaint with refereeing, but also frustration with VAR process.
If the penalty had been awarded through VAR then Phillips’ second yellow card would have stood. The only cards that are rescinded are those directly resulted to the play, such as through DOGSO (Denying an Obvious Goal-Scoring Opportunity), and not those issued for other disciplinary matters.
Verdict: As referee Robinson saw the incident and described it as a collision between the players, it goes down as referee’s call.
Possible DOGSO red card: Handball by Dawson
What happened: The game was in the 49th minute when Jean-Philippe Mateta tried to help a ball through to Ismaïla Sarr, who would have been through on goal. The ball hit Craig Dawson, and possession switched to Wolverhampton Wanderers. Crystal Palace manager Oliver Glasner was adamant that Dawson should have received a red card for DOGSO (denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity), but referee Anthony Taylor gave no free kick, let alone a card.
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: The ball did hit Dawson’s arm, but it was close to his body by his side. For this to be an offence, Dawson would need to have made, as Glasner claimed, a deliberate movement to block the ball going through to Sarr, but there doesn’t appear to be evidence of this.
Then it would be a question of Sarr having an obvious scoring chance; he would have been ahead of the Wolves defence though with Toti Gomes close behind.
Verdict: No VAR intervention.
Possible goal: No foul by Muñoz on Sá
What happened: Crystal Palace thought they had scored a dramatic winner in the sixth minute of stoppage time. José Sá collected a cross into the area but was challenged by Daniel Muñoz, and Mateta put the loose ball into the net. However, referee Taylor blew for a foul on the goalkeeper as soon as the ball crossed the line. (watch here)
VAR decision: No goal.
VAR review: The referee held his whistle to give the VAR the chance to review the incident, but Taylor’s decision was correct.
When a goalkeeper has even one finger on top of the ball when it’s touching the ground, they are deemed to be in control and cannot be challenged. Sá has his hand on the ball so is in control, and Muñoz cannot in any way bundle into him — even if the Palace player didn’t actually touch the ball.
Had the goal been awarded it would have been disallowed. In the 2021-22 season, Aston Villa had a goal ruled out through VAR against Leicester City, with Jacob Ramsey kicking the ball when goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel had a glove on the ball as it was touching the ground.
Verdict: No VAR intervention.
Possible red card: Rodríguez foul on Gibbs-White
What happened: Morgan Gibbs-White collected the ball on the edge of the box in the 18th minute, with the Nottingham Forest player brought down by a tackle from Guido Rodríguez. Referee Peter Bankes showed the yellow card, which was checked by the VAR, Alex Chilowicz.
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: This wouldn’t be the case in other top European leagues, but in the Premier League the point of contact on a challenge of this nature is important.
Rodríguez catches Gibbs-White around the boot area, which is only likely to be a yellow card. That changes if a player jumps into the challenge with additional force, but for a standard challenge we wouldn’t expect to see a red card.
Verdict: No VAR intervention.
Possible red card: Tarkowski foul on Archer
What happened: Cameron Archer was brought down by a strong challenge by James Tarkowski in the 24th minute, with the Everton defender booked by referee Andy Madley. The VAR, Matt Donohue, considered a possible red card.
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: If the Rodríguez tackle lacked the extra intensity for a possible red card, then the Tarkowski challenge came very close.
Tarkowski’s attempt to win the ball also saw him come in low, but with more force. It’s a bad challenge, but again it didn’t quite meet what we’d expect for an intervention.
Verdict: No VAR intervention.
Possible DOGSO red card: Bendarek foul on Beto
What happened: Jan Bednarek was shown the yellow card in the 76th minute after bringing down Beto. The referee showed the yellow card, but was there a case for a DOGSO red card? (watch here)
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: DOGSO has been a running theme for a number of weeks now, with a number of borderline decisions — though only Arsenal‘s William Saliba has been sent off through VAR.
Bednarek knows that Beto is going to out-pace him, so brings down the Everton striker. Beto has already played the ball toward goal, so the direction of play ticks the box for DOGSO. What saves the Southampton defender is that the foul itself takes place in a wide area, meaning there’s a case that Taylor Harwood-Bellis may be able to make a challenge on the cover.
Verdict: No VAR intervention.
Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.
[ad_2]
Source link
