Jesus penalties for Arsenal, Faes handball
Video Assistant Referee causes controversy each week within the Premier League, however how are selections made, and are they right?
After every weekend we check out the key incidents, to look at and clarify the method each when it comes to VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.
– How VAR selections affected each Prem membership in 2022-23
– VAR within the Premier League: Ultimate information
In this week’s VAR Review: Could Arsenal have been awarded an injury-time penalty of their draw at house to Southampton? Did Leicester City’s Wout Faes commit a handball offence in opposition to Wolves? And what about Liverpool’s winner in opposition to Nottingham Forest?
Possible penalty: Bella-Kotchap on Jesus
What occurred: In the 94th minute, Gabriel Jesus picked up a unfastened ball within the space and checked inside earlier than going to floor when he went previous Armel Bella-Kotchap. Play continued and Reiss Nelson noticed a shot deflected large of the publish, however Jesus stayed on the ground asking for a penalty. Referee Simon Hooper waved away the enchantment and pointed for a nook.
VAR determination: No penalty.
VAR evaluation: From the replays, it is troublesome to see that there was any contact on Jesus by Bella-Kotchap, and it appeared as if the Arsenal striker could have gone to floor after taking a heavy contact inside towards two Southampton defenders.
There’s nothing on this to counsel the VAR, Peter Bankes, ought to have intervened to award a spot kick.
Possible penalty: Elyounoussi on Jesus / handball by Diallo
What occurred: In the a hundredth minute, Ben White helped the ball again into the centre of the world, a Southampton defender nodded it away and it fell to Jesus, who was challenged by Mohamed Elyounoussi. Again, Jesus went to the turf wanting for a penalty, and Bella-Kotchap then blasted the ball in opposition to the arm of teammate Ibrahima Diallo.
VAR determination: No penalty.
VAR evaluation: This was much like the primary one. It’s not clear how a lot contact there was from the replays, however the striker completely went to floor in a theatrical method, and there was nothing to counsel the VAR ought to have intervened.
The second declare was for handball in opposition to Diallo. It was powerfully struck on the Southampton participant from point-blank vary, and there’s an exemption clause in steerage issued to referees when the ball is unexpectedly struck at a participant by a teammate — even when the arm is away from the physique. In any case, Diallo did not even have his arm prolonged, so there was no likelihood of a VAR intervention.
This handball declare is not akin to the penalty West Ham United’s Michail Antonio conceded in opposition to Arsenal final weekend; in that state of affairs, the arm was away from the physique and created a transparent barrier for a shot on aim.
Possible penalty: Handball by Faes
What occurred: Wolverhampton Wanderers had a nook within the 89th minute, and when the ball was floated in it appeared prefer it may need hit the outstretched arm of Wout Faes. There was a VAR verify for a handball penalty.
VAR determination: No penalty.
VAR evaluation: It’s an odd state of affairs, as a result of not one of the obtainable TV angles are really conclusive of what occurred. Did the ball strike the arm of Faes, or did it really come off the again of Wolves’ Craig Dawson? The likelihood is it was off the Leicester participant, but it surely’s not conclusive.
The handball offence will surely be a penalty in UEFA competitors (if confirmed as hitting the defender’s arm), however as we now have seen many instances the interpretation in continental competitors is way stricter than in any home league. If the arm is away from the physique in Europe, it is going to be a penalty. The arm was out, however simply how a lot Faes knew it was going to hit his arm is questionable as he missed an tried header.
There might be no approach the VAR, Chris Kavanagh, might overrule the on-field determination from the obtainable proof.
It’s totally different to the penalty declare final weekend in opposition to Harry Maguire, when the Manchester United defender was jostling for place in opposition to different gamers and at all times had his arm in the identical place.
If this spot kick is given by referee Andy Madley it would not have been overturned, because the proof is not current both approach, but it surely in all probability does not fairly attain the brink for a VAR intervention.
Possible offside: Henderson and Salah on aim
What occurred: Liverpool scored what proved to be the successful aim within the seventieth minute when Mohamed Salah netted from Trent Alexander-Arnold’s free kick. But was there an offside in opposition to Salah, or Jordan Henderson interfering with an opponent by making an attempt to move it because the ball got here throughout?
VAR determination: Goal stands.
VAR evaluation: There could be a transparent case for an offside offence in opposition to Henderson, as a result of he made an apparent motion to play the ball with at tried flicked header.
From the common TV angle it seemed like Henderson, and actually Salah, might have been in entrance of the final defender. But the offside know-how clearly confirmed each have been performed nicely onside by the boots of Moussa Niakhate.
Possible penalty overturn: Jebbison foul on Silva
What occurred: Daniel Jebbison tripped Bernardo Silva within the forty first minute, and referee Stuart Attwell pointed to the spot. The VAR, Tony Harrington, checked for a doable overturn.
VAR determination: Penalty stands, scored by Riyad Mahrez.
VAR evaluation: The solely query over the choice was whether or not Jebbison received a contact on the ball. Replays recommended it was Silva who received a toe to the ball, earlier than the Sheffield United participant then kicked the Manchester City participant’s foot.
No likelihood this determination could be overturned, and the VAR would seemingly have intervened had the spot kick not been awarded.
Possible back-pass: Ream to Leno
What occurred: In the twentieth minute, Tim Ream performed a cross again to goalkeeper Bernd Leno, who picked the ball up. However, referee Peter Bankes selected to not award an oblique free kick to Leeds inside the world.
VAR evaluation: Not one for VAR, because the incident did not contain a doable penalty, however one value discussing nonetheless.
When Ream performs the ball to the goalkeeper, it appears a sure again cross, however not one of the Leeds gamers enchantment for it. When the ball is picked up, Bankes clearly makes the sign that the assistant has informed him the ball deflected off the outstretched boot of Leeds United’s Rodrigo.
As quickly because the ball comes off an opponent, this resets a doable back-pass offence.
Information supplied by the Premier League and PGMOL was used on this story.