The video assistant referee sparks debate weekly in the Premier League—how are decisions made, and are they accurate?
This season, we will analyze key incidents to clarify the VAR protocols and the Laws of the Game.
Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, boasting over 12 seasons on the elite list, officiating in both the Premier League and Championship. With a wealth of experience at the top level, he has operated within the VAR framework in the Premier League, providing unique insights into the processes, rationale, and protocols involved on a matchday.
Nottingham Forest 0-0 Arsenal
Referee: Michael Oliver
VAR: Darren England
Time: 80 minutes
Incident: Potential penalty for handball
What happened: As the ball headed towards the sideline for an Arsenal corner, Nottingham Forest defender Ola Aina appeared to handle the ball while attempting to keep it in play. Simultaneously, Forest teammate Elliot Anderson also sought to save it, making contact with Aina from behind as they contested for the same ball.
VAR decision: The VAR upheld the referee’s decision of no penalty for Arsenal, concluding that the ball made contact with Aina’s shoulder first and that his arm was in a natural position.
VAR review: Referee Michael Oliver was not in a position to see any potential foul in this case. hence, VAR Darren England had the sole responsibility to evaluate whether the incident warranted an off-field review (OFR).
For a VAR intervention here, especially without any live feedback from the referee, it was crucial to establish clear evidence that an offense occurred and that it was overlooked by the refereeing team.
England reviewed the incident repeatedly, ultimately determining that the ball had deflected off Aina’s shoulder before hitting his arm, which he deemed to be in a natural position given Aina’s movement at the time.
also, the contact from Anderson on Aina contributed to the uncertainty regarding whether a clear error was made. England concluded the check, deciding no penalty was warranted.
Verdict: While the rationale for the VAR’s non-intervention is understandable, Aina could be considered fortunate that this incident did not lead to an OFR and a penalty kick being awarded.
I concur that the ball did deflect off his shoulder, and the contact from Anderson likely influenced Aina’s balance. yet, neither factor sufficiently justifies the deliberate secondary arm movement to control the ball in an effort to keep it in play.
England appeared to believe there were too many uncertainties rather than certainties in this situation, leading to his decision against viewing it as an obvious error—an outcome that is sure to stir debate.
Manchester United 2-0 Manchester City
Referee: Anthony Taylor
VAR: Craig Pawson
Time: 10 minutes
Incident: Red card challenge
What happened: Manchester United defender Diogo Dalot was late on a challenge against Jérémy Doku, catching the Manchester City player high on the knee. Referee Anthony Taylor issued a yellow card, which VAR Craig Pawson confirmed.
VAR decision: The yellow card for Dalot’s reckless challenge was reviewed and upheld by the VAR, with the contact assessed as light and not excessive.
Verdict: This will undoubtedly be a major discussion point from this derby match—especially as it occurred just 10 minutes in, and United ultimately won.
Dalot’s challenge was lackadaisical. The late, high contact on Doku’s knee placed Pawson in a challenging position when reevaluating the tackle so early in a derby match.
The live commentary from Taylor, labeling the challenge as reckless rather than dangerous—though understandable from his perspective—would have influenced Pawson’s approach to the review.
After watching the replays, Pawson may have felt uncomfortable given the challenge’s nature. yet, due to the incident’s timing, he likely concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend an OFR, striving to align the visuals with the on-field yellow card offense rather than opting for red.
While I empathize with Pawson’s reasoning, I firmly believe a red card was warranted for this incident. The challenge was reckless, unnecessary, and threatened the safety of the opposing player.
