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 Brentford's stoppage-time equaliser against Chelsea have been disallowed? Why was a Tottenham Hotspur goal at West Ham United ruled out? And should Wolverhampton Wanderers have been reduced to 10 men at Newcastle United?
Brentford 2-2 Chelsea
Possible offside: Ouattara on Carvalho goal
What happened: Brentford scored an equaliser three minutes into stoppage time when Fábio Carvalho guided the ball home after Kristoffer Ajer had flicked on Michael Kayode's long throw. As the players celebrated, the VAR, James Bell, checked for a possible offside offence within the move by Dango Ouattara.
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: This went under the radar amid the drama of Brentford's late goal, and many are probably unaware there was an offside check against Ouattara.
You can't be offside from a throw-in, but when Ajer touches the ball that creates a phase and Ouattara was just ahead of Chelsea defender Reece James. Ouattara didn't touch the ball, so it was a subjective judgement for the VAR to determine impact.
Ouattara can't commit an offence by his position alone. He's not blocking the vision of James, and doesn't run across the line of the ball. But the law does say that a player cannot be "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent."
Ouattara stuck out a leg as the ball went through to Carvalho, so one part of the clause is satisfied. But did that impact James?
The on-field team told the VAR that they knew Ouattara was offside, but they didn't feel he did anything to trigger an offence so the goal was given.
Verdict: It will split opinion, and it depends how you weigh up one crucial aspect; the ball was past Ouattara and in front of James when the Brentford player made an attempt to touch the ball, does that create enough of an impact on the defender for VAR to intervene?
Had Ouattara tried to play the ball immediately as it went past him, thus influencing James' calculation of the flight of the ball, it's a much clearer offside offence.
As Ouattara made a late movement, it created doubt over the level of impact with James fully focused on the ball and failing to make contact.
While it might have seemed like a quick check, it did take 1 minute 28 seconds -- a little longer than the jubilant goal celebration. When the television coverage switched to the VAR output, you could see that Bell was weighing up the timing of Ouattara's movement.
Depending on who was on VAR duty you could get a different outcome. It's one of the over-riding issues with VAR, because it's just another layer of subjective interpretation and referees won't always agree. Likewise, fans can argue about this interpretation -- and neither side would be incorrect in their view.
VAR interventions to rule out goals when the attacker isn't in contact with a defender are rare. Last season, it happened only once, in Nottingham Forest vs. Southampton, and that was logged as an error by the Premier League's Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel. An offside Chris Wood tried to head the ball and the VAR, Graham Scott, incorrectly advised that he had impacted the defenders.
We also have evidence of the VAR leaving such a situation alone. In January 2022, an offside Roberto Firmino, who was being marked by Tyrick Mitchell, jumped to head a cross, missed it and the ball went to Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, who scored. The VAR determined that the Liverpool forward didn't impact upon Mitchell, as the Crystal Palace defender had no chance of playing the ball. It was a slightly different situation, but it shows how an offside player "clearly attempting to play a ball" can be deemed to have no impact. (watch here)
This is far more likely to be given on the field and upheld, even when that seems harsh -- Southampton's disallowed goal vs. Brighton last season being a perfect example.
PGMO will be content that the goal has been allowed to stand. After all, it's caused very little controversy -- and that may have been very different had the goal been chalked off.
Both outcomes are justifiable, so leaving this with the on-field call is fine.
West Ham 0-3 Tottenham
Possible goal: Foul challenge by Van de Ven on Walker-Peters
What happened: Tottenham Hotspur won a corner in the 19th minute. It was delivered into the area by Mohammed Kudus, with Cristian Romero rising unmarked to head into the net at the near post. However, referee Jarred Gillett immediately blew for a foul, ruling that Kyle Walker-Peters had been pushed by Micky van de Ven. It was looked at the VAR, John Brooks.
VAR decision: No goal.
VAR review: This was an exceptionally soft free kick given by the on-field referee, and upheld by the VAR because Van de Ven had two hands on Walker-Peters.
Van de Ven did move into Walker-Peters and placed his hands on him, causing the West Ham United player to stumble over Romero, but it wasn't quite so simple.
The chain reaction was caused by Hammers midfielder Mateus Fernandes, who was angered by an initial tussle with Van de Ven and barged into the back of the Spurs player. This knocked Van de Ven into Walker-Peters, and caused Walker-Peters to go down.
So you can argue this was caused by Fernandes, and Van de Ven was an innocent bystander.
Verdict: "Honestly the referees & VAR have had an absolute shocker of a start to the season," Spurs midfielder James Maddison wrote on X on Saturday evening. "If that goal is disallowed for a foul you will never ever see a corner be taken without referee blowing for something ever again."
It was classic footballers' hyperbole from Maddison, because soft free kicks are given on set pieces all the time -- it's just that they are usually called without the ball ending up in the back of the net.
And if we look at the evidence, VAR's ignoring these decisions in the Premier League is nothing new. We're into the sixth season of VAR, and in that time just one goal has been awarded after an incorrect foul on the pitch -- when Newcastle United's Bruno Guimarães was initially penalised for a foul on Leicester City goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel in April 2022.
Over the same period, the VAR has advised that 40 goals should be disallowed on review for a foul. It's near impossible to get a goal awarded, but VARs will step in to give a foul several times a season.
Supporters get annoyed because among the 40 they see minimal infringements (see Josh King's goal for Fulham at Chelsea before the international break), but it never falls the other way with referees pretty much always supported when they disallow a goal. The high threshold sees perfectly good goals that stay ruled out, because so much weight is put on the on-field decision.
Last month, Brentford had a goal ruled out by the referee against Aston Villa when Nathan Collins was judged to have fouled goalkeeper Emiliano Martínez. It was incredibly soft, with the KMI Panel voting 5-0 that it should be a goal on the field, but 4-1 that it didn't reach the threshold for an intervention.
There's another obvious comparison to Manchester United's Leny Yoro getting away with putting two hands in the back of Fulham's Calvin Bassey -- with the on-field decision of goal being upheld. This time the KMI Panel voted 3-2 that it was a foul, but 4-1 that it shouldn't be changed on review.
Possible penalty: Challenge by Fernandes on Van de Ven
What happened: Tottenham won eight corners in the first half, and each saw a fair amount of pushing and shoving. On this set piece, Fernandes and Van de Ven both went to ground at the back post but referee Gillett allowed play to continue.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Premier League referees and VARs have been told to clamp down on clear examples of holding this season, but it's still an interpretation of several factors.
The referee has decided that the two players were involved in mutual holding, and it was eventually Van de Ven that pulled down the West Ham player -- but it's not difficult to come to a different conclusion.
Fernandes has his back to the play and no interest in playing the ball, and that's an indicator of a non-football action which should result in a penalty.
Verdict: If there's mutual holding, this will always carry weight with the VAR but Fernandes was very fortunate and it was probably just below the threshold for an intervention.
For supporters, though, it will seem strange that a nothing foul to disallow a goal is upheld, but this kind of holding offence isn't penalised.
Before the international break, Brentford wanted a penalty for a foul by Sunderland's Reinildo Mandava on Nathan Collins, but the VAR didn't step in. The KMI Panel voted 5-0 that this was an on-field penalty, but it was split 3-2 against a VAR review -- this situation probably falls into that same category.
Possible red-card overturn: Foul by Soucek on Palhinha
What happened: João Palhinha was caught by a high challenge from Tomás Soucek in the 54th minute, with referee Gillett immediately producing the red card. It was checked by the VAR. (watch here)
VAR decision: Red card stands.
VAR review: A very clear red card for the West Ham midfielder. He went into the challenge with a raised foot, with studs leading and a straight leg which made contact on Palhinha's shin -- ripping his sock.
A straight leg is seen as more dangerous as there is no give in the challenge, meaning the whole force of the contact is felt by the opponent. With a bent leg, this can be judged as less impactful as the force is retracted.
Verdict: After a season when Premier League referees came in for a lot of criticism for poor identification of serious foul play offences, leading to three missed VAR interventions for red cards, two more which should have been given on-field (but not to the VAR threshold) and a record number (four) of dismissals overturned on appeal, it's only fair to identify good decision making.
Likewise, you can point to the VAR intervention to show a red card to Newcastle's Anthony Gordon vs. Liverpool, with Brooks on VAR for that match, too.
Newcastle 1-0 Wolves
Possible DOGSO: Mosquera challenge on Barnes
What happened: Harvey Barnes ran onto a ball over the top in the 20th minute, but went to ground under pressure from Yerson Mosquera. Referee Chris Kavanagh wasn't interested in a foul, and allowed played to continue. The VAR, Tim Wood, considered a possible case of denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO). (watch here)
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: The potential foul happened just outside the penalty area, so the VAR can only consider a red card for DOGSO.
Had Kavanagh given the free kick against Mosquera, the VAR would only be deciding upon the quality of the goal-scoring opportunity. But Wood is left with two subjective calculations -- both the foul and DOGSO.
Verdict: Wood has decided this was just two players jostling for possession and that Barnes was not in control of the ball, but Mosquera appeared to lead with his arm into the head of Barnes -- and that's more than just a normal battle for the ball.
It may appear that the ball ran to goalkeeper Sam Johnstone, and away from Barnes, but that only happened because it came off the chest of Mosquera as he fell to the ground. That has to be removed from the consideration, so we have the ball dropping into the path of Barnes.
Barnes may not have control of the ball at the moment of the challenge, but the DOGSO law also considers the likelihood of him doing so -- and it was directly in front of him with the immediate chance of a touch and a shot.
If you think this was foul, and it was, then the boxes are ticked for a red card. By making the challenge on Barnes with a high arm, it should have been a foul and a VAR intervention.
Burnley 0-1 Liverpool
Possible red card: Foul by Ugochukwu on Mac Allister
What happened: Lesley Ugochukwu was shown a yellow card by referee Michael Oliver for a late challenge on Alexis Mac Allister in the 16th minute. It was checked by the VAR, Paul Tierney, for a possible red card for serious foul play. (watch here)
VAR decision: No red card.
VAR review: There's a set of considerations, influenced by each other, that a VAR uses to determine serious foul play. This decision is a good example of how these factors have to be weighed up together.
High up on the list is the buckle of the ankle, as that indicates a higher level of force. That's present here, so why wasn't the referee sent to the monitor?
As the contact by Ugochukwu was low and just above the boot, there's a greater likelihood that the challenge could cause the buckle. Contact on the shin with a buckle is a more reliable indicator of force. So, other factors are equally as important.
Ugochukwu comes in from a very short distance, suggesting lower force, and it's reckless rather than endangering the safety of an opponent.
Verdict: Tierney has had issues with identifying serious foul play in recent seasons but this can be considered an "orange" card, somewhere between a yellow and a red, and we shouldn't expect it to be upgraded on review.
Possible penalty overturn: Handball by Hannibal
What happened: Liverpool were awarded a penalty in the third minute of stoppage time when the cross from Jeremie Frimpong was blocked by the arm of Hannibal Mejbri. Referee Oliver pointed to the spot, and it was checked by the VAR.
VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Mohammed Salah.
VAR review: Hannibal turned and raised his arm into the path of the ball, creating a very clear barrier. It's an obvious penalty, and the Burnley player knew it.
Verdict: Last season, only two handball penalties were awarded without VAR intervention. This season, there's already been five and we're only 40 games in.
Possible disallowed penalty: Encroaching by Frimpong
What happened: Salah scored Liverpool's winning goal from the penalty spot in the 95th minute, but Frimpong was already inside the area when the kick was taken. Should there have been a retake?
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: VAR has always been about judging impact to cause an intervention. When the protocol around penalties and encroaching was drawn up, it was decided that the VAR shouldn't intervene in if a player had just stepped into the area too early -- they must have a material effect on the outcome by, for instance, scoring or clearing a rebound.
Yet it was effectively a two-tier law, as encroachment still remained an absolute offence (though rarely enforced) for the on-field team at all levels of the game. So on that basis, the actions of Frimpong could be penalised.
But the law was changed in the summer to bring everything in line with VAR protocol -- Frimpong being inside the area is no longer a retake offence for the referee and his assistants either.
Frimpong could still commit an offence by entering the area too early, but it would need to be very obvious and put off the goalkeeper -- and that's very unlikely to happen.
Bournemouth 2-1 Brighton
Possible penalty overturn: foul by Van Hecke on Evanilson
What happened: Evanilson moved into the area in the 59th minute, and as he looked to cut back inside he went down under a challenge from Jan Paul van Hecke. Referee Peter Bankes pointed to the spot, and it was checked by the VAR, Paul Howard.
VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Antoine Semenyo.
VAR review: Van Hecke dangled a leg out in front of Evanilson, and the AFC Bournemouth striker used the small amount of contact and goes to ground.
Verdict: There was only a small amount of contact, but once it's been given there's no prospect of a VAR overturn.
Before the international break, we saw a possible penalty situation which the KMI Panel logged as an error, one of three so far this season. Wolves wanted a spot kick for Hugo Bueno, who had stepped inside and went down after being caught by Everton's Iliman Ndiaye. It was a 3-2 vote that the VAR should have stepped in to advise a penalty.
Van Hecke isn't quite the same, but it shows some similarities with how the Brighton player was caught out by the movement of an opponent.