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.
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.
Referee: Andy Madley
VAR: Stuart Attwell
Time: 23rd minute
Incident: Possible penalty for Arsenal
What happened: Arsenal thought they should have been awarded a penalty in the first half when Michael Keane appeared to tread on the Achilles of Kai Havertz as the Arsenal attacker entered the penalty area. Referee Madley ignored the appeals, with VAR agreeing with the on-field decision.
VAR decision: The referee’s call of no penalty to Arsenal was checked and confirmed by VAR, with the contact from Keane on Havertz deemed to be minimal.
VAR review: The VAR had to consider if replays showed a different story to the detail described by the referee Madley or his rationale as to why a penalty was not awarded on field. Madley apparently didn’t deem the contact by Keane sufficient enough to stop Havertz in his tracks, he described the level of contact as minimal and not impactful on the Arsenal attacker’s ability to continue his run and possible shot on goal. VAR agreed with the on-field rationale and cleared the call of no penalty.
Verdict: It’s difficult to understand the non-intervention by VAR in this situation as the contact by Keane, whilst not at a high level, was impactful on Havertz’s ability to progress and have a shot at goal. By stepping on the Achilles of Havertz, who was ahead of the defender, consideration of the level of contact is irrelevant and must be deemed a foul in this type of situation.
I am not convinced by the official reasoning for the penalty not being awarded, I felt that referee Madley judged the contact as normal, with two players making accidental contact as they were both running in the same direction with no-one instigating contact, which is understandable in real-time.
However, the pictures showed a different dynamic and an on-field review should have been recommended and a penalty awarded.
