The VAR Review: Lindelof, Kiwior handball penalties
Video Assistant Referee causes controversy each week within the Premier League, however how are choices made, and are they appropriate?
After every weekend we check out the key incidents, to look at and clarify the method each by way of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.
– How VAR choices affected each Prem membership in 2022-23
– VAR within the Premier League: Ultimate information
In this week’s VAR Review: Should West Ham United have been given a penalty for handball in opposition to Manchester United defender Victor Lindelof? Was it appropriate to disallow their aim for a foul by Michail Antonio on David de Gea? Why was Newcastle United’s penalty in opposition to Arsenal cancelled? And when is a penalty a gentle penalty?
Possible penalty: Handball by Lindelof
What occurred: In first-half stoppage time with West Ham already 1-0 up, Said Benrahma tried to cross into the world and the ball hit the arm of Manchester United centre-back Victor Lindelof. Referee Peter Bankes waved away appeals for a penalty and United broke up discipline.
VAR determination: No penalty.
VAR overview: The complicated state of the handball regulation, the checklist of mitigating elements which a VAR should bear in mind and the excessive threshold for intervention all come collectively on this incident, which means West Ham have been denied a penalty that ought to have been awarded.
Having a excessive threshold is meant to restrict the affect upon the sport, however it could possibly additionally trigger a VAR to generally overthink an incident, when an overturn is the extra apparent final result. A VAR may be searching for a motive to not change a subjective determination, quite than obtain the consequence which most followers and gamers would anticipate.
With the excessive bar additionally comes restricted use of the pitchside monitor, which is there for a referee to vary his determination and never simply to take a re-assessment. So, the VAR will not simply ship the referee over if he thinks it is perhaps mistaken — he have to be sure it was incorrect.
The VAR for this sport, Stuart Attwell, has utilized the exemption clause that the participant’s arm was not away from his physique, and the ball would have hit his chest if it hadn’t hit his hand. The logic is he hasn’t prevented the ball from reaching its meant vacation spot, as a result of it might have been stopped by his physique. However, the obvious deliberate motion of the arm to the ball by Lindelof trumps this, and a penalty ought to have been the end result.
On Monday, the Premier League will for the very first time launch the audio of some contentious VAR choices in a pilot present, meant to enhance transparency. Being capable of hear how choices have been reached shall be an enormous step ahead, although it is unlikely to assist in conditions similar to this when the VAR has arrived on the mistaken final result.
Howard Webb, the chief refereeing officer, intends to roll this out extra repeatedly this season, however it could possibly solely be in days following a match as FIFA nonetheless forbids any competitors from enjoying out the VAR discussions stay.
Possible aim: Foul by Antonio on de Gea
What occurred: In the 52nd minute, West Ham thought that they had scored a second aim when Michail Antonio challenged David de Gea, and poked residence the free ball. However, referee Bankes disallowed the aim for a foul on the goalkeeper.
VAR determination: No aim.
VAR overview: Perhaps one of many softer fouls we’re more likely to see, however when a striker places himself ready whereby the goalkeeper can not use his arms to get to the ball, it is all the time more likely to be given and definitely will not be reversed by the VAR.
That stated, de Gea hasn’t all the time benefitted from such choices. In December 2019, he conceded a aim in opposition to Everton in seemingly an identical state of affairs. On that event the foul wasn’t given when Dominic Calvert-Lewin had his arm throughout the Spain worldwide; the VAR backed that up and did not intervene to disallow it.
Penalty overturn: No handball by Kiwior
What occurred: Newcastle United thought they have been about to have the prospect to take the lead from the penalty within the seventh minute when referee Chris Kavanagh penalised Jakub Kiwior for handball after a shot by Bruno Guimaraes. The VAR needed to test there was an offence.
VAR determination: Penalty cancelled.
VAR overview: It took fairly some time for the VAR, Michael Salisbury, to resolve to ship the referee to the monitor to overturn his determination in what gave the impression to be a reasonably straight-forward overview.
It quickly grew to become obvious that the ball got here off Kiwior’s thigh, and even when it then did go on to the touch his arm it wasn’t away from the physique. Also, if a participant is pulling his arm into his physique that carries an exemption in opposition to handball. The solely attainable case for the spot kick can be if Kiwior had intentionally moved his arm to the ball, quite than simply making an attempt to tuck it into his physique.
It took too lengthy, virtually three minutes from award to cancellation, however the fitting determination was reached in the long run.
Possible penalty: Silva foul on Solanke
What occurred: In the 67th minute, Dominic Solanke felt he ought to have been awarded a penalty kick when taking place below a sort out from Thiago Silva. Referee John Brooks turned down the attraction.
VAR determination: No penalty.
VAR overview: The first of a sequence of penalty choices this weekend which go proper to the guts of VAR protocol, and when an intervention is predicted.
From Silva’s problem the ball moved out to the fitting, which can have given the referee the impression that the Chelsea defender bought the ball.
However, replays confirmed that it was actually Solanke who bought the contact, so does that make it a transparent and apparent error? If the incident hasn’t performed out because the referee describes to the VAR, does that routinely imply he needs to be despatched to the monitor? That would most likely be the case if there was a decrease threshold for intervention, however within the Premier League the VAR, on this case Peter Bankes, shall be searching for a smoking gun. Can he actually make sure that there’s a foul problem, even when the defender did not actually contact the ball?
Any contact from Silva on Solanke would have been very slight, so even when the referee thought the defender did get to the ball it would not be thought of an error to not give the penalty kick. But as we see within the subsequent match, proof of contact may also imply an awarded penalty should stand, even when the award is gentle.
Possible penalty overturn: Surridge foul on Lavia
What occurred: Southampton have been handed a penalty within the 94th minute. Referee Michael Oliver pointed to the spot after he noticed contact from Sam Surridge on the boot of Romeo Lavia. But was there sufficient on this for a penalty?
VAR determination: Penalty stands, scored by James Ward-Prowse.
VAR overview: A really gentle penalty, however as soon as the referee has awarded it and the VAR, Paul Tierney, has recognized contact by defender on attacker, then the penalty should stand.
If Oliver hadn’t awarded the penalty then it is impossible it might have been given via the VAR — simply as was the case with Solanke. Because the extent of contact was negligible, it would not be thought of a transparent and apparent error to not give the penalty. But as a result of contact was current, it is not a transparent and apparent error to award it. You can forgive followers for being confused about this.
Protocol is identical throughout leagues proper as much as UEFA competitions.
Possible penalty overturn: Leno foul on Vardy
What occurred: Leicester City have been awarded a penalty within the sixty fourth minute when Jamie Vardy bought to the ball forward of Fulham goalkeeper Bernd Leno, and was then introduced down. Referee Robert Jones pointed to the penalty spot.
VAR determination: Penalty stands, missed by Vardy.
VAR overview: Another overview which appeared to take far longer than was needed with the VAR, Jarred Gillett, a number of completely different angles to attempt to detect if Leno had bought a contact on the ball earlier than he collided with Vardy.
A penalty gave the impression to be the proper determination from the primary replay, and it is questionable if it might have been thought of a transparent and apparent error to offer the spot kick if the VAR was needing to take a look at so many various angles for proof of a contact.
Possible penalty overturn: Palhinha foul on Maddison
What occurred: Leicester have been awarded a second penalty within the eightieth minute when James Maddison gave the impression to be tripped when he checked again inside to go previous Joao Palhinha — however the Fulham participant was adamant he hadn’t touched the midfielder.
VAR determination: Penalty stands, scored by Maddison.
VAR overview: For all Palhinha’s protestations, there was particular contact on Maddison, with the Fulham midfielder leaving a trailing leg to cease his progress.
Like different on-field penalties awarded this weekend, there was no likelihood of a VAR overturn. Contact was there and the penalty had been awarded, so it will not be overturned.
Possible penalty overturn: Struijk foul on Foden
What occurred: Phil Foden gained a penalty within the 83rd minute when he was introduced down by Pascal Struijk and referee Andy Madley pointed to the spot. There was a fast test of the choice by the VAR, Simon Hooper.
VAR determination: Penalty stands, missed by Ilkay Gundogan.
VAR overview: The response of the Leeds United participant stated every part about this, with Struijk clearly enjoying the person quite than the ball. Struijk locations his left leg throughout Foden, which forces the Man City participant to the bottom.
It would all the time stand as a penalty, and no motive for the VAR to become involved.
Information supplied by the Premier League and PGMOL was used on this story.