Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?
After each weekend we take a look at the major incidents to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.
In this week's VAR Review: Why did Southampton have a goal ruled out for offside at Brighton & Hove Albion, and why did the check take so long? Plus, should Arsenal's opening goal at West Ham United have been disallowed? And all the other talking points from the games.
Brighton 1-1 Southampton
Possible onside: Armstrong when Archer scored
What happened: Southampton thought they had taken a 2-1 lead in the 67th minute when Ryan Fraser played a cross into the area from the left flank, and Cameron Archer side-footed the ball into the net. As the Saints players went off to celebrate, there was a delay of around 29 seconds before the on-field officials decided to disallow the goal for an offside offence by Adam Armstrong. The VAR, Jarred Gillett, checked to see if the goal could be awarded. (Watch here)
VAR decision: No goal.
VAR review: It's a decision which can be explained in law, but it took far too long -- and that makes the decision seem worse than it otherwise might have.
Referee Rob Jones and his assistant deemed that, by flicking at the ball, Armstrong had made "an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball." In this case, Brighton & Hove Albion goalkeeper Bart Verbruggen.
Verbruggen was on his line and didn't move, so how could he be impacted? The law intends to prevent an offside player doing something which affects an opponent. It could be an attempt to kick the ball, or a dummy to allow it through the legs. Think of it this way: an act which, if not present, might result in the opponent taking a different decision.
Verbruggen cannot move from his position at the near post as the cross from Fraser goes close to Armstrong. There's no possible offence from Armstrong until he flicks his leg out. The law also doesn't say you have to think Armstrong can score, or even get a shot on target, only that the obvious action has an impact. So, could Verbruggen could have moved over to the centre of goal to Archer sooner?
The law doesn't demand that the goalkeeper has been stopped from making a save, only that his ability to do so has been impacted.
It's a fair on-field decision in law -- though there's also a valid opposing view that Armstrong's involvement was of limited consequence. The on-field decision of offside was so important (more to come on this...)
A VAR check of four minutes and 27 seconds is always far too long, but it's worse when it could have been so much quicker.
Because the on-field decision was against Armstrong, that should have been the first element that was checked by the VAR. If you're not going to say the referee and his assistant were wrong on that aspect, you don't need to bother with Archer's position.
Perhaps the VAR thought a factual offside would be a clearer outcome, but there were difficulties placing the lines and it took a total of three minutes and 23 seconds after the "goal" to decide Archer was onside.
It then took one minute and four seconds to check and complete the subjective offside on Armstrong. Do that first, and it's quick with far less controversy.
The biggest chunk of time was spent on an irrelevant decision, ruling a player onside who couldn't score because, chronologically, Archer's possible offence came after that of Armstrong. If a goal had been awarded on-field, then checking the goal scorer first would have made sense.
Before this weekend, the average delay for a VAR check this season has been 36 seconds per match; a significant improvement on the 64 seconds of the 2023-24 campaign. Yet unnecessary delays like this are what drive perception.
Semiautomated offside technology (SAOT) would improve the factual assessment, of course, but issues in testing mean it isn't being brought into the Premier League before Christmas, as originally planned. Indeed, it now seems highly unlikely it will be introduced this season and there have been concerns about the accuracy of SAOT in LaLiga, which brought it in at the start of the season. With the criticism VAR faces in England, the technology switch won't be made until all issues have been ironed out.
What would have happened had the goal been given as onside on the field? For Southampton, this too will be a sore point.
In October, Saints lost 3-1 at Arsenal, and the goal which put the Gunners 2-1 up in the 68th minute had some controversy about it. Gabriel Martinelli was left completely unmarked to nudge a cross from Bukayo Saka into the back of the net. However, an offside Mikel Merino had made slight movement toward the ball as it floated over to the goal scorer.
Do this sound familiar? That's because there are clear parallels. In both cases an offside player had made a movement to a ball as it went to an onside teammate to score. There are some differences, however. Southampton goalkeeper Aaron Ramsdale was already positioned at back post and the flight of the ball was away from him; at Brighton it was across Verbruggen into the centre of goal. Ergo, Ramsdale's position would have been no different, while Verbruggen may have positioned himself more centrally.
Also, it could also be argued that it had a possible impact on defender Igor Julio, who was close to Archer. In the Arsenal game, Martinelli was unmarked, so no defender could have been impacted.
Verdict: The real difference is the on-field decision: onside at Arsenal, and offside at Brighton. Both outcomes can be correct in law -- and that's what so many struggle with. Southampton manager Russell Martin complained that "that the on-field decision carries weight," but in a game made up mostly of subjective judgements you can't really do it any other way with this system of VAR.
It's a common misconception that this system of VAR can ever bring consistency of decision-making -- that's not its remit. The consistency comes in when the VAR intervenes in the on-field decision, upon judging a clear and obvious error. It means two similar situations can result in opposite outcomes, and this is a pretty good example of that.
West Ham 2-5 Arsenal
Possible foul: Timber on Paquetá before Gabriel goal
What happened: Arsenal took the lead in the 10th minute when Gabriel Magalhães headed home unmarked at the near post on a corner routine. However, Lucas Paquetá appealed for a foul, claiming that a push from Jurriën Timber had prevented him from stopping the ball getting to Gabriel. Referee Anthony Taylor, who appeared to have a clear view of the incident, awarded the goal.
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: Timber leaned into Paquetá, and it did seem to affect the way the West Ham United player was able to challenge for the aerial ball. So there's a clear case for a foul, though Paquetá's protests were not particularly strong nor supported by his teammates.
This is a 50-50 call in the Premier League, but is unlikely to be given on a VAR review. In the other top European leagues it's more likely to lead to an intervention to disallow the goal.
Last season, Everton manager Sean Dyche was furious that a goal by Luton Town in the FA Cup was allowed to stand, and that came in very similar circumstances.
Dominic Calvert-Lewin was adamant he was pushed in the back at the near post by Ross Barkley, which allowed the ball to go through and it deflected into the net off Everton defender Vitalii Mykolenko. In that case too, the VAR decided there wasn't enough in Barkey's actions to change the on-field call of no foul.
Verdict: If the goal had been ruled out on the field, Arsenal could have had no complaints -- but there isn't quite enough in this for the VAR, Michael Salisbury, to get involved.
Only one goal has been ruled out for a foul in the buildup this season, and Southampton were left feeling aggrieved against Wolverhampton Wanderers. Saints thought they had equalised in the 12th minute when Ryan Manning powered a shot into the net. There was a coming together between Southampton's Mateus Fernandes and Wolves defender Nélson Semedo. The VAR intervened because Semedo was judged to be shielding the ball and had the right to the space. (Watch here)
It was a controversial, borderline VAR overturn, and the Premier League's Key Match Incidents Panel voted 3-2 that it was a correct intervention.
Possible penalty overturn: Paquetá challenge on Saka
What happened: Arsenal were awarded a penalty in the 32nd minute when Paquetá was adjudged to have tripped Bukayo Saka inside the area. Referee Taylor pointed to the spot, and it was checked by the VAR.
VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Martin Ødegaard.
VAR review: For the VAR, we can compare this to the spot kick given to AFC Bournemouth at Wolves in the first minute, when Evanilson burst into the area and went down under a challenge from Toti Gomes. Referee Peter Bankes pointed to the spot and it was checked by the VAR, Paul Tierney.
Also, Nottingham Forest's Jota Silva was caught by Ipswich Town's Sammie Szmodics, with referee Tony Harrington pointing to the spot. Szmodics pleaded his innocence, but that too was cleared by the VAR, Matt Donohue.
There's no doubt that all three penalties are on the soft side, but there is a clear touch from Toti on the thigh of the Bournemouth striker, while there is boot-on-boot contact between Paquetá and Saka. Meanwhile, Silva went down theatrically but as the decision was given on-field with proof of contact, the spot kick stood.
They are all unlikely to be given on VAR review, the first two for levels of contact and Silva for the exaggerated fall, but they won't get overturned.
Verdict: These are the kind of decisions which, while not incorrect, do lead to questions of consistency when other challenges with similar levels of contact do not result in a penalty.
Possible penalty overturn: Fabianski challenge on Gabriel
What happened: Arsenal had a corner in the second minute of added time. It was played into the six-yard area and Gabriel got his head to the ball first, heading over the bar, and was then clattered into by West Ham United goalkeeper Lukasz Fabianski. The Arsenal player went down holding his head, and his teammates appealed for a penalty. After a short wait, referee Taylor pointed to the spot.
VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Saka.
VAR review: Goalkeepers obviously have a right to come and challenge for an aerial ball, and there is inevitably going to be some form of collision. On rare occasions that oversteps the mark, especially when it involves making contact with an opponent's head in way which is deemed reckless -- which was the case with Fabianski, who was booked.
Last month, Arsenal fans were left enraged when they weren't awarded a penalty at Internazionale in the Champions League in similar circumstances. Mikel Merino jumped for the ball with goalkeeper Yann Sommer, who made contact with the Arsenal player's head in attempt to punch clear. Romanian referee Istvan Kovacs signalled for a corner, believing Sommer had touched the ball, and that was supported by the VAR.
The Fabianski incident was more blatant, as he was nowhere near playing the ball before he plunged his hand into the face of Gabriel.
Verdict: No chance of a VAR review to overturn this penalty.
Liverpool 2-0 Man City
Possible penalty overturn: Ortega challenge on Diaz
What happened: In the 76th minute, Luis Díaz picked up a loose ball after a poor touch from Kyle Walker and touched it past on-rushing Manchester City goalkeeper Stefan Ortega. The Liverpool forward went to ground from the challenge, and referee Chris Kavanagh had no hesitation in pointing to the spot. It was checked by the VAR, Paul Tierney. Was there a case for an offside though, and what about a red card for Ortega too?
VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Mohamed Salah.
VAR review: Even with the small amount of contact from Ortega's challenge, there was little controversy about this decision. The goalkeeper came out desperately trying to get a glove on the ball ahead of Diaz, but it was the Liverpool player who got there first. Diaz could have avoided Ortega, but he is under no obligation to take evasive action to hurdle an opponent who has made a sliding challenge into his path. This is accepting contact, and not initiating it.
We have seen this several times across the season, including with Newcastle United's penalty against City when Anthony Gordon allowed contact from Éderson.
Diaz had pushed the ball away from goal, so wouldn't be a DOGSO situation. Regardless, it was a genuine attempt to play the ball by Ortega. As it's classed as stopping a promising attack on a penalty, rather than DOGSO, there was no yellow card for the keeper.
City's players protested that Salah should have been given offside, with the forward in front of the City defence when Diaz nicked the ball off Walker. While Salah did initially run after the ball, this isn't an offside offence. The player must impact an opponent, and Salah is never within playing distance of the ball nor does he have a City player close to him.
Verdict: Rightly, not a situation the VAR is going to get involved in.
Tottenham 1-1 Fulham
Possible red card: Cairney foul on Kulusevski
What happened: Fulham midfielder Tom Cairney was shown a yellow card by referee Darren Bond in the 81st minute after catching Dejan Kulusevski with a challenge from behind. Was there a case for a red card? It was looked at by the VAR, Craig Pawson.
VAR decision: Red card.
VAR review: Last weekend, Chelsea's Cole Palmer was on the receiving end of a poor challenge from Wilfred Ndidi. Like Cairney, the Leicester City player was booked by the referee (Andy Madley), but that decision wasn't referred to the monitor by the VAR (Paul Tierney).
There's a strong argument that both should have been red cards as both challenges came from behind with no prospect of being able to play the ball. But in the Premier League, with a high threshold for VAR intervention, Ndidi was able to escape with a yellow.
The difference is the level of intensity and the point of contact on the opponent. Ndidi caught Palmer on the back of the heel, and the VAR could argue that while it was a bad challenge, a yellow card could still be an acceptable disciplinary outcome. It wouldn't be in any other top European league, or in the Champions League.
That's not the case with Cairney. He caught Kulusevski much higher, on the calf, with some degree of force to push down on the Tottenham Hotspur player's leg.
Verdict: A certain VAR red card and a good intervention -- and one of those cases where the referee was probably too close to recognise its full magnitude. The question is whether VAR in this league should be stricter on lesser challenges like that of Ndidi. The Premier League is eager to protect its reputation for a more physical game, but sometimes that may allow players to get away with serious foul play.
Wolves 2-4 Bournemouth
Possible penalty: Sá challenge on Evanilson
What happened: José Sá took possession of the ball inside his own area in the 15th minute. Evanilson closed down the goalkeeper, who made contact with him as he attempted to stop his clearance. The ball ran to a Wolves defender, and the referee took no action. However, the VAR was completing a check as the game continued; when the ball went out of play the referee was sent to the monitor to review a possible penalty.
VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Justin Kluivert.
VAR review: Evanilson gets a toe to ball first, and was then kicked by Sá as he went to clear.
There is a comparison with Chris Wood's claim for a penalty in the Nottingham Forest vs. Ipswich Town game. Both Wood and Dara O'Shea got to ball at pretty much the same time, and the players kicked each other rather than there being a foul by either.
Evanilson effectively won possession off the Wolves goalkeeper, who had been slow to react to the closing down from the striker. And once Evanilson moved the ball past Sá, the goalkeeper was always going to be in trouble in this situation.
Verdict: Last season, one of the logged VAR errors was a failure to intervene and give a penalty to Brentford when Nottingham Forest goalkeeper Matt Turner kicked Yoane Wissa when attempting to make a clearance. On that occasion the VAR, Michael Oliver, decided it was a normal coming together but the referee should have been advised to give a spot kick. So, this shows improved decision making, though by a different VAR.
Nottingham Forest 1-0 Ipswich
Possible penalty: Cajuste challenge on Wood
What happened: There was another appeal for a spot kick from Chris Wood in the 65th minute. The striker chased down an overhit pass into the area from Morgan Gibbs-White, and went down after a challenge from Jens Cajuste. It seemed to be a fair claim for a penalty at first, and was looked at by the VAR.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: Replays quickly showed that Cajuste got his toe to the ball ahead of Wood, and there was no foul.
Verdict: No VAR intervention.
Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.