The VAR Review: Should Garnacho have been given a penalty against Spurs?

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.

– How VAR decisions have affected every Prem club in 2023-24
– VAR in the Premier League: Ultimate guide

In this week’s VAR Review: Should Manchester United‘s Alejandro Garnacho have been awarded a penalty against Tottenham Hotspur? Why did it take so long to disallow Aston Villa‘s goal against Everton? And should Luton Town‘s late leveller at Burnley have been ruled out?

Possible penalty: Udogie challenge on Garnacho

What happened: Alejandro Garnacho had the ball inside the Tottenham area in the 32nd minute, under pressure from Destiny Udogie. The Spurs player had an arm around Garnacho, who went to ground looking for a penalty. Referee John Brooks wasn’t interested, and play continued.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: Garnacho threw himself to the ground far too easily for the VAR to get involved. While Udogie did have his arm around the Argentine’s waist, that alone isn’t enough for a foul. The act of holding has to “impede the opponent’s movement” and it would have been a huge surprise if this crossed the threshold for a VAR review.

Manchester City did get a VAR penalty against Manchester United when Rasmus Højlund was penalised for holding Rodri, the difference being the attacker was running to meet a free kick and it was considered to have stopped him from being able to challenge for the ball. Garnacho was stationary and appeared to try to use the contact from Udogie to win a spot kick.

It’s understandable that fans may look at the two decisions and struggle to see how they are different. And you can add in that holding outside the area is more readily penalised — Richarlison was given a foul in similar circumstances. As a penalty is a stronger punishment than a free kick, the threshold for fouls inside the area is much higher. It may not say this in the Laws of the Game, but it’s an unwritten rule of how the game is played and officiated.

When asked if this should be a penalty, Man United manager Erik ten Hag said: “Yes. What can you do? But I am used to it, all season that is the case. At Spurs was similar, a clear handball from Romero and I can list a number more. In some point I think it will turn.”

Yet, according to the stats from the Premier League’s Independent Key Match Incidents panel, United haven’t had one incorrect VAR decision or refereeing error go against them. In fact the opposite is true. Arsenal‘s cancelled penalty and the spot kick not awarded to Wolverhampton Wanderers are logged as video review errors in their favour, while Joe Worrall‘s red card for Nottingham Forest and Harry Maguire‘s holding of Erling Haaland, not given as a spot kick, were judged to be wrong on the pitch but not clear and obvious for the VAR to send the referee to the monitor.

The Romero handball decision was unanimously backed by the five-person panel, which commented “The ball was struck from close proximity, his right leg is up to block and therefore the arm is in an expected position.”

Disallowed goal: Bailey offside

What happened: Aston Villa thought they had the lead in the 18th minute when Álex Moreno fired home from just outside the area. However, Everton’s players appeared sure there was an offside in the buildup against Leon Bailey, and the decision went to the VAR, Paul Tierney.

VAR decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR review: This should have been a very simple decision to disallow the goal for offside, yet somehow Tierney contrived to make the review last 3 minutes and 42 seconds.

At the point John McGinn passes the ball, it was obvious from the cut of the grass that Bailey was going to be in an offside position, at least a yard ahead of the last defender, Arnaut Danjuma. Yet Tierney switched between different angles (all cameras are synced together at the point of the pass by McGinn), one giving the misleading impression that the decision would be onside, when in fact Bailey wasn’t even in view.

The goal-line camera always appeared to be the best one to use; Tierney got there in the end and applied the lines.

Then came perhaps the most perplexing part of the process, as the VAR seemed to check a possible offside against Clément Lenglet in the line of vision of goalkeeper Jordan Pickford from Moreno’s shot. Yet a subjective offside against Lenglet is irrelevant once the position of Bailey had been established.

That further delay was put down to the VAR checking that the offside was in the same attacking phase, yet Bailey passed the ball to Moreno who immediately scored. As the Independent Panel ruled that VAR was correct to disallow Villa’s goal against Sheffield United before Christmas, when there was a much greater question of whether a foul had taken place in the same phase, there should have been no debate. Checking of the attacking phase doesn’t explain seeing the VAR look at Lenglet’s involvement.

Offside VAR decisions in the Premier League have taken much longer since the horrendous error to mistakenly disallow Luis Díaz‘s goal for Liverpool at Tottenham. That’s understandable, as no one wants a repeat, but this situation took it to the extremes.

At least when semi-automated offside technology is introduced next season (as we’re expecting) we will lose some of the delay, as the VAR won’t have to find the best angle, work out the kick point or place the offside lines … though it wouldn’t stop the VAR looking at another phase of the play unnecessarily. Tierney had identified Bailey’s offside position after two minutes and 20 seconds, yet took almost another 1½ minutes to disallow the goal.

If Bailey had been onside, there would be a possible foul by Lenglet on Danjuma, with the Villa player appearing to hold back the defender to unsuccessfully deepen the offside line. We saw it in reverse last month when Mohamed Salah was pushed offside against Burnley, and ended up in the line of sight of goalkeeper James Trafford on Harvey Elliott‘s goal; ruled out following a VAR review.

Lenglet’s actions would have been reviewable as it was within the attacking phase and had an impact on the goal being scored, though it would need to be judged as a foul rather than just a holding offence which created an onside position. Would the VAR have seen this as clear and obvious to disallow the goal? It’s difficult to be certain, especially as holding appeared to be taking place from both players.

Disallowing the goal for the foul wouldn’t have made the process quicker, as the referee would have to be sent to pitchside monitor. Getting that offside completed in a timely manner was the answer.

Possible penalty: Mykolenko, Tarkowski challenges on Diaby

What happened: Aston Villa were on the attack in the 60th minute as Moussa Diaby received the ball inside the area. He checked inside Vitalii Mykolenko, who dangled out a leg, before being challenged by James Tarkowski. Referee David Coote allowed play to continue and McGinn fired wide.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: Two interesting situations. Firstly, Mykolenko made contact with Diaby yet the Villa player chose to stay on his feet — so often a player uses minimal contact to try to win a penalty. Is this type of contact ever enough to make a player go to ground, or is the attacker justified in trying to use it to win a spot kick? Either way, this one wouldn’t be enough for the VAR to get involved, though it wouldn’t have been overturned if Diaby had gone down and the referee had pointed to the spot.

The challenge from Tarkowski is perhaps more questionable, but he wins the ball and makes contact with Diaby as a result of making a clearance rather than from a tackle on an opponent. That doesn’t rule out the possibility of a penalty being awarded if the challenge is careless or reckless, but it would be a surprise for this to be judged as a foul rather than a coming together, even though Tarkowski goes in strongly.

Possible disallowed goal: Foul by Adebayo on Trafford

What happened: Luton equalised in the 92nd minute when Carlton Morris headed home a cross from Alfie Doughty, but goalkeeper James Trafford was on the ground after a challenge from Elijah Adebayo. Luton’s players didn’t celebrate too much as referee Tony Harrington signalled a goal, and it was checked by the VAR, Peter Bankes.

VAR decision: Goal stands.

VAR review: It’s the kind of situation where you expect the referee to give the free kick in favour of the goalkeeper, but once the goal is given we’re left trying to work out where the “clear and obvious” line sits.

On one side of the argument, Trafford isn’t getting to the ball, hasn’t got off the ground and runs into the Luton striker with no prospect of getting to the ball — a goalkeeping error. On the other, Adebayo isn’t attempting to play the ball and places his hip into Trafford’s path, which could be considered “impeding with contact.” The VAR decided it was a collision between two players.

If you concede the goal you’re furious, yet if you’re the team who’s scored it you would feel it’s a soft VAR intervention. Refereeing opinion appears to be split on this, and the Independent Panel may vote that the goal should have been disallowed on the field, but it’s not clear and obvious to be overturned. It’s the kind of situation where you might get the opposite outcome with the subjective view of a different VAR.

The difference with Man City’s disallowed goal against Liverpool? That was given by the referee. It’s another reminder that VAR isn’t intended to provide consistency of decision-making.

Possible red card: Gusto challenge on Willian

What happened: Malo Gusto was booked by referee Anthony Taylor in the 38th minute when he caught Willian above the ankle as both challenged for the ball. The VAR, Michael Salisbury, checked for a possible red card.

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR review: Gusto has already been on the receiving end of one VAR red card this season, for his challenge on Aston Villa defender Lucas Digne. There are similarities in the point of contact, the key difference being the way the Chelsea player goes into it.

If a player is stepping into a challenge and catches the opponent just above the boot with limited force, there’s unlikely to be a VAR review. Evidence of the leg buckling isn’t the one determining factor for a VAR review but it will be used as an indicator of force. It was the difference with the VAR red card for Liverpool‘s Curtis Jones against Spurs, high on the shin with a straight leg which caused Yves Bissouma‘s leg to buckle.

With Gusto’s red card against Villa he was diving and stretching, deemed to be out of control and endangering the opponent (like Bissouma, it caused Digne’s ankle to buckle.)

There have been many similar challenges this season to Gusto’s on Willian which also haven’t resulted in a VAR review. But consistency comes down to the view of an individual referee, and as officials won’t agree on different situations, we’re never likely to get it.

Possible penalty overturn: Diop foul on Sterling

What happened: Chelsea were awarded a penalty two minutes into added time when Raheem Sterling checked inside and went down in the area. Referee Taylor pointed to the spot.

VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Cole Palmer.