VAR review: Lindelof, Kivor handball penalty; Antonio foul on De Gea


Video assistant referee causes controversy every week Premier LeagueBut how are decisions made, and are they correct?

After each weekend we take a look at the key events to examine and explain the process in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

, How VAR decisions affect every Prem club in 2022-23
, VAR in the Premier League: The Ultimate Guide

In this week’s VAR review: Needed West Ham United a penalty is awarded for handball against Manchester United guard Victor Lindelof, Was his goal disallowed for a foul by Michael Antonio But David de Gea, why was Newcastle Unitedpenalty against armory Cancelled? And when is a penalty a soft penalty?

Possible penalty: Handball by Lindelof.

What happened: With West Ham already 1–0 up in stoppage time of the first half, Benrahma said attempted a cross into the area and the ball hit the arm Manchester United back center Victor Lindelof, Referee Peter Banks turned down the appeal for a penalty and United marched off the field.

VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Review: The confusing state of handball law, the list of mitigating factors that VAR must take into account and the high threshold for interference all come together in this incident to mean that West Ham were denied a penalty which should have been awarded. should have been done.

The purpose of having a higher limit is to limit the impact on the game, but it can also sometimes cause VAR to overturn an incident when an overturn would have been a more obvious result. A VAR may be looking for a reason to change a subjective decision, rather than achieving the result that most fans and players would expect.

With the higher bar also comes the limited use of pitchside monitors, which are for the referee to change his decision, not just look for a second time. Therefore, VAR won’t just send the referee off if he thinks it could be foul – he must be certain it was foul.

The VAR for this play, Stuart Atwell, applied the exemption clause that the player’s hand was not away from his body, and the ball would have hit his chest if it had not hit his hand. The argument is that he has not prevented the ball from reaching its intended destination, as it would have been stopped by his body. However, an apparent deliberate hand motion on the ball by Lindelof thwarts this, and a penalty should have resulted.

Premier League will be on Monday for the first time Release audio of some controversial VAR decisions in pilot show, with the aim of improving transparency. Being able to hear how decisions have been made would be a big step forward, although it is unlikely to help in situations like this when VAR has come to the wrong result.

Howard Webb, the chief refereeing officer, intends to introduce this more regularly this season, but this can only happen in the days following matches as FIFA still prohibits any competition from playing VAR discussions live. refuses.

Possible goal: Foul by Antonio on De Gea

What happened: In the 52nd minute, West Ham thought they had scored a second when Michael Antonio challenged David de Gea and fired home the loose ball. However, referee Banks disallowed the goal for a foul on the goalkeeper.

VAR Decision: No target.

VAR Review: Perhaps one of the softest fouls we’re likely to see, but when a striker puts himself in a position where the goalkeeper can’t use his hands to get to the ball, it’s always likely to be given And definitely won’t be overturned by VAR. ,

That said, de Gea hasn’t always benefited from such decisions. In December 2019 he everton Seemingly in a similar scenario. when the foul was not called on that occasion Dominic Calvert-Lewin He had his hand throughout the Spain international; VAR supported it and did not intervene to disallow it.

Penalty overturn: no handball by Kivor

What happened: Newcastle United They felt they had a chance to take the lead from a penalty in the seventh minute when referee Chris Kavanagh decided to take the lead from a penalty. Jacob Kivor for handball after a shot bruno guimaraes, VAR had to check if there was no offense.

VAR Decision: fine canceled.

VAR Review: It took a long time for VAR, Michael Salisbury, to decide to send the referee to the monitors to overturn what seemed like a fairly straightforward review.

It soon became clear that the ball had come off Kivor’s thigh, and that if it had still touched his arm it was not far from the body. Also, if a player is pulling his arm across his body that is exempt against a handball. The only possible case for a spot kick would be if the keeper intentionally extended his arm towards the ball rather than trying to trap the ball with his body.

It took about three minutes from awarding to cancellation, but in the end the right decision was taken.

Possible penalty: Silva’s foul on Solanki.

What happened: In the 67th minute, Dominic Solanki felt he should have been awarded a penalty kick for going down from the tackle Thiago Silva, Referee John Brooks turned down the appeal.

VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Review: The first of a series of penalty decisions later this week which goes to the heart of the VAR protocol, and when to expect an interference.

Silva’s challenge took the ball to the right, which must have given the referee the impression that Chelsea Defender got the ball.

However, replays showed that it was indeed Solanki who got the touch, so is it a clear and obvious error? If the incident hasn’t happened as the referee tells VAR, does that automatically mean it should be sent on the monitor? If there was a lower threshold for interference this would probably be the case, but VARs in the Premier League, in this case Peter Banks, will be on the lookout for the smoking gun. Can he really be sure that there is a foul challenge, even if the keeper didn’t actually touch the ball?

Any contact by Silva on Solanki would have been very slight, so it would not be considered an error to not award him a penalty kick if the referee felt that the defender had held the ball. But as we see in the next match, evidence of contact can also mean that there should be an awarded penalty even if the award is soft.

Potential penalty turn: Surridge foul on Lavia

What happened: southampton Received a penalty in the 94th minute. Referee Michael Oliver pointed to the spot after seeing contact Sam Surridge on the boot Romeo Lavia, But was it enough to punish?

VAR Decision: Penalty Stand, Scored by James Ward-Prowse,

VAR Review: A very soft penalty, but once the referee has awarded it and the VAR, Paul Tierney, has identified contact by a defender on an attacker, a penalty should be awarded.

Had Oliver not given the penalty, it was highly unlikely that it would have been awarded via VAR — as was the case with Solanke. Since the level of contact was negligible, non-imposition of penalty would not amount to a clear and direct error. But since the contact was present, awarding it is not a clear and obvious error. You can forgive fans for being confused about this one.

The protocol is the same in all leagues until UEFA competitions.

Potential penalty turn: Leno foul on Vardy

What happened: leicester city Received a penalty in the 64th minute jamie wardy reached for the ball fulham goalkeeper bernd leno, And then brought down. Referee Robert Jones pointed to the penalty spot.

VAR Decision: Penalty stand, missed by Vardy.

VAR Review: Another review that seemed to take longer than necessary with VAR, Jared Gillett looked at several different angles to try to ascertain whether Leno had got a touch on the ball before colliding with Vardy.

From the first replays a penalty appeared to be the correct decision, and it is doubtful that it could have been considered a clear and obvious error in awarding a spot kick if the VAR had needed to look at so many different angles for evidence of touch. .

Potential penalty turn: Palhinha foul on Maddison

What happened: Leicester got a second penalty in the 80th minute when james madison When he checked back inside to go to the past he appeared to be trapped joao palhinha – but the Fulham players were adamant that they had not touched the midfielder.

VAR Decision: Penalty stand, made by Maddison.

VAR Review: For all Palhinha’s protests, there was definite contact on Maddison, with the Fulham midfielder leaving a trailing foot to halt his progress.

Like other on-field penalties awarded this weekend, there was no chance of VAR overturning. There was contact and the penalty was awarded, so it will not be overturned.

Potential penalty turn: Struijk fouls Foden

What happened: Phil Foden won a penalty in the 83rd minute when he was brought down Pascal Struijk and referee Andy Madley pointed to the spot. The decision was quickly checked by VAR, Simon Hooper.

VAR Decision: Penalty stand missed by ilke gundogan,

VAR Review: reaction of leeds united The player said it all, with Struijk clearly playing the role of man rather than the ball. Struijk lays his left foot across to Foden, forcing the Man City player to fall to the ground.

It will always be a penalty, and there is no reason for VAR to be involved.

This story used information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.

Source link