The 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 the VAR protocol and the laws of the game.
All screenshots photo credit: CBS
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.
Inter Milan 0-1 Liverpool
Referee: Felix Zwayer
VAR: Sören Storks
Incident 1: Possible Handball, leading to a goal.
Time: 32 minutes
What happened: Liverpool’s Dominik Szoboszlai delivered a corner deep into the Inter Milan penalty area, where both Hugo Ekitike and Virgil van Dijk jumped to challenge for the ball. Van Dijk got the first contact and headed the ball back toward goal, via a deflection off the arm of Ekitike, then on to the head of Ibrahima Konaté who scored.
VAR decision: The VAR recommended an on-field review (OFR), having deemed that Ekitite committed a handball offence in the buildup to the goal.
VAR review: This review was a lengthy four minutes, with the officials uncomfortable that a goal had been scored, created in part via a deflection off an attacking player’s arm.
Ekitike’s contact on the ball was accidental, absolutely. However, his left arm being at shoulder height, outstretched, and the level of movement towards the ball would have been the focus. Clearly it caused debate among the officials as to whether it was an unnatural position — the only rationale for this to be deemed an offence in law.
Following the OFR, referee Zwayer decided that the incident did indeed meet the threshold for a handball offence and the goal was disallowed.
Verdict: In my opinion, Liverpool were unfortunate in this incident as this goal would have been awarded in the Premier League. The considerations specific to this incident carry a much higher threshold in the Premier League when a ball is played against a teammate’s arm.
However, the handball law, its interpretation and application has a much lower threshold in Europe, as clearly evidenced in this incident.
Having said this, it doesn’t necessarily mean that UEFA will agree that this is a correct interpretation. It will be interesting to hear their official position.
Incident 2: Possible Penalty Kick
Time: 84 minutes
What happened: Liverpool’s Florian Wirtz went down in the penalty area following brief contact on the back of his shirt from Inter defender Alessandro Bastoni.
VAR decision: The VAR felt that Bastoni committed a holding offence that impacted Wirtz and recommended an OFR for a possible penalty kick.
VAR review: Referee Zwayer’s trip to the monitor was relatively brief on this occasion. Once he had viewed the incident from two angles, he had seen enough to agree with the VAR and awarded a penalty kick.
Verdict: This was, in my opinion, a poor intervention by the VAR and, equally, a surprising final outcome delivered by the referee.
In Europe, physical contact is judged against a lower threshold than in England. However, when considering a holding offence, the action still needs to meet the criteria of two key elements for it to be punishable:
– Was the holding sustained
– Was the holding impactful
The contact on Wirtz in this incident was minimal, instant and certainly did not impact the Liverpool attacker’s ability to move. In fact, he was stationary when he decided to go to ground.
As with the handball decision in the first half, it will be interesting to hear UEFA’s official position over the interpretation of this situation. I would be surprised if this is backed as a correct intervention by the VAR or the final decision from the referee.