Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?

After each matchday 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: Exploring the reasons behind the missed red card for Everton‘s James Tarkowski, and explaining the offside claim on Liverpool‘s winning goal on Wednesday night. Plus, should Aston Villa and Brentford have been awarded penalties?

Liverpool 1-0 Everton

Possible red card: Serious foul play by Tarkowski

What happened: Everton defender James Tarkowski went to make a clearance from the edge of the area in the 11th minute and made high contact on Liverpool midfielder Alexis Mac Allister with his follow through. Referee Sam Barrott produced a yellow card and it was checked for a possible red by the VAR, Paul Tierney.

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR review: Tarkowski came running in at speed and won the ball. As he moved his leg through, he caught Mac Allister on the calf with his studs in a swinging action. This ticked all the boxes for serious foul play — a tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force.

So, why didn’t the VAR intervene?

There’s an instruction not to sanction a red card if a player has caught an opponent with the natural result of a kicking motion. So a player could make a clearance, or take a shot, and make high contact and that’s deemed to be unavoidable. It doesn’t excuse all actions though, and this was the perfect example of the line being crossed.

If Tarkowski had cleared the ball from a standing position, or by only taking a step or two, you could understand the thinking — there would then be a low degree of force. But he ran in from several yards, made a sliding play on the ball and the height of his boot couldn’t be fully explained by the challenge. There’s every reason to believe Tarkowski could have avoided contact with the opponent.

James Tarkowski comes in with force and high contact on Liverpool midfielder Alexis Mac Allister with his follow through. Peter Byrne/PA Images via Getty Images

Maybe there’s a correlation to a red card shown to Arsenal‘s Myles Lewis-Skelly at Wolverhampton Wanderers, though in reverse of course. The VAR took the referee’s description of the Lewis-Skelly incident and felt it sufficiently matched the replays to decide there hadn’t been a “clear and obvious” error. Yet that wasn’t true; there wasn’t enough force for a serious foul play red card, so the VAR should have intervened.

Barrott said the Tarkowski incident was a reckless challenge (which is a yellow card) and a result of the play of the ball, and the VAR believed that was supportable. But sometimes the VAR needs to be more independent, especially on these serious foul play challenges, to fully assess force and intensity. That can be the most difficult aspect to assess in the VAR hub, working only on replays and not on the feel of the game, but it’s an area in which referees in England have constantly fallen short.

PGMOL has admitted that James Tarkowski should have received a red card. Liverpool FC/Liverpool FC via Getty Images

Verdict: There’s been barely any real drama, bar the usual supporter disgruntlement at decisions in general, for many weeks. Indeed, there hasn’t been a VAR error logged since January. But this will definitely go down as the 10th missed intervention of the season. At the same stage last season there had been 21 missed VAR reviews recorded. But every time a major error like this happens, the perception reverts to type — as VAR is causing as much drama week-in, week-out as in previous seasons.

What’s more noticeable is the number of times serious foul play errors have involved Tierney. Of the 10 missed interventions in the last two seasons, he has been in the VAR hub for four of them — no other video assistant has more than one to their name.

However, it shouldn’t be ignored that, in general, Tierney has been one of the very best VARs this season, having to specialise in the role due to long-term injury. According to the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel, across 44 appointments and 86 KMI’s, Tierney has made just one mistake — a missed serious foul play red card for Brighton’s Pervis Estupiñán at West Ham United in December.

But the Tarkowski call was a clear red card, as admitted by PGMOL on Thursday morning, and shows that it’s the one area that needs to be improved.

Barrott has been elevated to the top tier of referees this season, and also added to the FIFA list of international officials. He refereed Arsenal vs. Manchester United and Tottenham vs. Liverpool in December, and is earmarked to do marquee games regularly. He has gained much praise across the last two seasons, but will be disappointed at his own misjudgment, even without the VAR’s failure to help him out.

The distance James Tarkowski travelled created the intensity which wouldn’t be present from a standing kicking motion. BBC

Possible offside: Díaz before Jota goal

What happened: Diogo Jota scored what proved to be the winning goal for Liverpool in the 57th minute, but Luis Díaz was in a clear offside position when the ball was initially played forward by Ryan Gravenberch. Was there a case for the goal to be disallowed?

VAR decision: Goal stands.

VAR review: We’ll see a situation like this several times a season, where a player is in an offside position behind a defender in the direction of the pass but isn’t given offside. On many other occasions the assistant will raise their flag, perhaps taking the safe option. But this is always a subjective assessment; has the attacker had a direct impact on the defender, or is he holding his position on the pitch?

The VAR is only going to look at it in the full framing of the law, rather what feels like the fair and just outcome. If a player doesn’t touch the ball, simply being in an offside position isn’t an offence. And when that player is stood still, as was the case with Díaz, making no movement whatsoever to the ball or the opponent, it’s difficult to intervene unless the player is in the line of vision of, for instance, the goalkeeper on a shot.

The reverse argument would be that Liverpool benefitted from Díaz’s offside position, as Tarkowski couldn’t be expected to simple leave the ball.

Luis Díaz was in an offside position when the ball was played forward. BBC

Even the “deliberate play” couldn’t help Liverpool, because the ball didn’t go to Díaz within the active offside phase. If Tarkowski had fluffed his clearance and the ball had run through to Díaz, he would almost certainly have been given offside as part of the same phase. And if the ball had deflected off another Everton player from Tarkowski’s play, even that could have kept Díaz active.

But Tarkowski kicked the ball away from goal, and when Jota got a touch that created a brand new offside phase — at which point Díaz was back onside.

So Díaz could only be given offside for impact on Tarkowski in the phase of the Gravenberch pass, and he didn’t do anything clear in law to give the VAR a reason to disallow the goal.

Luis Díaz made no movement to the ball or the opponent, but there’s the argument that Liverpool still benefitted. BBC

Verdict: The most controversial of these situations happened in the Manchester derby against City two years ago, when an offside Marcus Rashford ran towards the ball but didn’t touch it or get close to an opposition player — and Bruno Fernandes ran on to it to score with a first-time shot.

Even though it was supportable in law to go with the on-field decision, it’s accepted that the game would expect an offside to be given. While Rashford’s run wasn’t in itself an offside offence, it could and maybe should have been viewed as being impactful on City keeper Éderson.

While we have a law that says a player who doesn’t touch the ball cannot be automatically offside, there will always be edge cases. Everton boss David Moyes wasn’t happy after the Liverpool game, but the Díaz incident will be logged as a correct decision.

Possible red card: Serious foul play by Pickford

What happened: The game was in the 86th minute when Dominik Szoboszlai attempted to play a long pass forward from inside his own half. He was caught by Tim Iroegbunam after the ball had gone, but Barrott played advantage with Darwin Núñez running onto the ball. However, when Everton defender Jarrad Branthwaite got in front of Núñez, before playing a pass back to Jordan Pickford, the referee stopped play for the earlier challenge. However, Pickford then appeared to kick Núñez as the players clashed, so should there have been a red card?

VAR decision: No red card.

Jordan Pickford kicks Darwin Núñez after the Liverpool striker got to the ball first. BBC

VAR review: The referee stopped play and gave Liverpool the free kick as soon as it was clear Núñez hadn’t taken possession of Szoboszlai’s pass. There were two whistles: the first when Branthwaite took the ball, then before the Núñez-Pickford clash. Advantage wasn’t going to be continued when the next act was possession by an opposition player, so no penalty was ever possible.

This is a different to Tarkowski’s challenge, with the Everton goalkeeper not coming in from distance and with a high degree of force, or going to ground. Yes, contact was high and he did miss the ball, but it was reckless rather than dangerous.

Verdict: Pickford deserved a yellow card for the challenge, which the referee could have shown even though play had stopped well before the incident. However, the VAR can’t get involved on a missed caution.

Núñez was booked for delaying the restart. He was off the field when he told the referee he needed treatment, then crawled back on.

Brighton 0-3 Aston Villa

Possible penalty: Hinshelwood challenge on Ramsey

What happened: The game was in the 37th minute when Jacob Ramsey burst into the area but went down under a challenge from Jack Hinshelwood. Referee Stuart Attwell waved away the penalty appeals and it was looked at by the VAR, Matt Donohue. (watch here)

VAR decision: No penalty.

Jack Hinshelwood should have given away a penalty for a challenge on Jacob Ramsey. BBC

VAR review: Ramsey tried to skip past the Brighton & Hove Albion defender, but the VAR felt there wasn’t enough contact on Ramsey to cross the threshold for a VAR review.

Verdict: This feels like another missed intervention, though it will go under the radar as Aston Villa won so convincingly.

Hinshelwood put his right foot across the running path of Ramsey, and there was contact on the attacker’s left boot and right knee.

It could be argued that Ramsey knew the contact was coming, but he didn’t initiate it himself and a penalty would have been the correct outcome.

Possible handball: Mitoma before scoring

What happened: Brighton thought they had a way back into game in the 55th minute when Kaoru Mitoma helped the ball on and Simon Adingra scored. However, there was a check for handball by the VAR.

VAR decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR review: At first it looked like the ball had simply hit Mitoma before falling for Adingra, and in that case it would be accidental handball and the goal would have stood. For Mitoma to be penalised it had to be a deliberate act.

Mitoma has a straight arm as the ball comes over, before bending his forearm upwards which creates the ability to cushion the ball on to Adingra. It is this movement which is deemed deliberate and why the goal was disallowed.

Verdict: A correct intervention, with referee Attwell having to go to the pitchside monitor as it’s a subjective judgement. If Mitoma had been the scorer, any handball would have been an offence and the VAR would have cancelled the goal from the hub.

Kaoru Mitoma deliberately controlled the ball with his arm before Simon Adingra netted. BBC

Newcastle 2-1 Brentford

Possible penalty: Challenge by Guimarães on Damsgaard

What happened: The game was in the 72nd minute when Mikkel Damsgaard asked for a penalty after an alleged push by Bruno Guimarães. Referee Peter Bankes had a good view of the incident and waved away the claims, and the challenge was looked at by the VAR, Craig Pawson.

VAR decision: No penalty.

Bruno Guimarães had two hand on Mikkel Damsgaard but there was no clear push. BBC

VAR review: While Guimarães did have two hands on the Brentford midfielder, there was no pushing motion and Damsgaard appeared to go to ground too easily.

Verdict: Not enough in this incident for VAR intervention.

Possible penalty: Challenge by Guimarães on Damsgaard

What happened: Brentford took a long throw-in seven minutes into added time and, after the ball had pinged around, Damsgaard again went down from a Guimarães challenge. Again, the referee said it wasn’t a penalty and the VAR checked the decision.

VAR decision: No penalty.

Bruno Guimarães got to the ball ahead of Mikkel Damsgaard before the players clashed. BBC

VAR review: Guimarães managed to get ahead of Damsgaard to touch the ball first, with the Brentford player then making contact with the Newcastle midfielder’s boot and the ball.

Guimarães moved his leg across and did go into Damsgaard, but it wasn’t reckless in nature.

The ball was there for both players to play, Guimarães got the first touch and what came next was a result of two players going for the challenge.

Verdict: Brentford boss Thomas Frank said afterwards that he and Damsgaard felt this wasn’t a spot kick. But Frank did believe the earlier incident between the two players should have been sent for review.

Most fans will probably say this one was the stronger call — which shows how difficult it is for the VAR to make decisions when players, managers and fans have different opinions.

This was a 50-50 incident and not for VAR review.

Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.