Video Assistant Referee causes controversy each week within the Premier League, however how are choices made and are they right?
This season, we check out the foremost incidents, to look at and clarify the method each by way of VAR protocol and the Legal guidelines of the Sport.
Andy Davies is a former Choose Group referee, with over 12 seasons on the elite record, working throughout the Premier League and Championship. With intensive expertise on the elite stage, he has operated throughout the VAR house on Premier League and affords a singular perception into the processes, rationale and protocols which are delivered on a Premier League matchday. @andydaviesref
Referee: Anthony Taylor
VAR: Michael Oliver
Incident: Penalty enchantment for Manchester United
Time: fifteenth minute
What occurred: Amad Diallo bumped into the Brighton space, drawing Maxim De Cuyper into making a problem. As Diallo reduce contained in the defender, De Cuyper flicked out his proper leg to seemingly journey the Manchester United attacker. Referee Taylor was unmoved by the appeals and allowed play to proceed.
VAR Resolution: Having seen the incident, the VAR checked and accomplished the non-penalty award. Oliver cited that De Cuyper had touched the ball whereas difficult and agreed with the on-field resolution of no penalty.
VAR Assessment: “Clear and apparent” errors are the benchmark for a VAR intervention and Oliver, having seen the assorted angles, would have felt this occasion didn’t meet the standards required. Oliver communicated in his assessment course of that he was completely happy that De Cuyper made a contact on the ball whereas placing within the problem and was subsequently snug with the unique on-field resolution.
#MUNBHA – 15′
The referee’s name of no penalty to Manchester United was checked and confirmed by VAR – with it deemed that De Cuyper performed the ball.
— Premier League Match Centre (@PLMatchCentre) October 25, 2025
Verdict: An fascinating state of affairs and one other penalty resolution the place a “contact on the ball” appears to have been a key issue as as to if an adjudged foul has been dedicated or not. Manchester United vs. Chelsea (Robert Sánchez), Newcastle vs. Arsenal (Nick Pope), and Fulham vs. Arsenal (Kevin) are three different incidents like this which have occurred in latest weeks.
A contact on the ball mustn’t all the time negate {that a} foul problem has been dedicated and, although I agree with all three of those earlier choices given their circumstances and particular person context, I imagine Taylor was incorrect on this event and may have awarded a penalty.
This was not a problem for the ball by De Cuyper, it was a lazy try to journey his opponent; any contact on the ball was minimal and consequential of his careless motion, versus a measured problem.
Nonetheless, as soon as Taylor selected to not award the penalty, the choice mustn’t have instigated an on-field assessment by VAR because it was not a “clear and apparent” error. The choice was subjective and dwell communication from Taylor would have matched the images within the VAR hub.
1:53
Moreno: Man United have developed an aura of confidence
Alejandro Moreno reacts to Manchester United’s 4-2 win vs. Brighton within the Premier League.
Incident: Doable foul by Luke Shaw on Georginio Rutter.
Time: 61st minute
What occurred: Bryan Mbeumo scored United’s third objective after Brighton misplaced possession within the middle of the pitch. However Brighton felt aggrieved that there had been a holding offence dedicated on Rutter by Shaw within the buildup to the objective. Referee Taylor had a great view of the incident and did not really feel it met his threshold for a holding offence towards the standards set by him or the Premier League match officers.
VAR Resolution: As with all objectives, VAR checks all phases of play resulting in a objective being scored, checking for any infringements clearly missed by the match officers in actual time. The contact by Shaw on Rutter was actually reviewed and it was felt that the on-field resolution to permit play to proceed was the right end result given the maintain was minimal, not sustained and didn’t immediately affect Rutter’s means to proceed to play.
VAR Assessment: Communication from the referee in actual time would have created the framework for this VAR test for a attainable foul. Taylor had a terrific view and his communication would have defined that he had seen a maintain by Shaw, nonetheless it was not sustained sufficient or impactful on Rutter’s means to play and he was snug no offence had been dedicated.
For VAR to intervene in any such occasion, they would want to have seen clear proof that Taylor’s studying of the incident was not factual towards the images offered.
Verdict: Regardless of Brighton’s frustrations, this was a great resolution in actual time by Taylor and an equally a constructive non-intervention by Oliver.
To penalize a participant for a holding offence on this key space of the sphere of play, the refereeing staff are on the lookout for the motion to satisfy one of many following standards for it to be deemed a foul: is the maintain sustained, impactful or excessive?
On this occasion there was a minimal, fleeting maintain by Shaw that had little or no affect on Rutter’s means to proceed with play. It was, in reality, Rutter’s resolution to cease, as he was anticipating a free kick to be awarded.
It’s so necessary to observe some of these conditions in “actual time.” A nonetheless image will present the holding to a degree the place you’ll query how can this not be a holding offence? Nonetheless, in actual time, you may clearly see the extent of holding by Shaw was minimal and, for my part, simply “regular soccer contact.” Certainly, this is able to have been the wording utilized by each Taylor and Oliver to conclude the incident.