The VAR Review: Spurs’ penalty claim, Chelsea disallowed goal

admin April 30, 2024 Football Leave a comment 24 Views

VAR certainly stirs up controversy week in and week out in the Premier League, with fans, players, and managers often left divided over its decisions. Let’s delve into the incidents you mentioned:

  1. Tottenham Hotspur penalty appeal: Without specific details of the incident, it’s challenging to determine definitively whether Tottenham should have been awarded a penalty before Arsenal scored their second goal. VAR reviews incidents that are “clear and obvious errors” or “serious missed incidents” in four key areas: goals, penalty decisions, direct red card incidents, and mistaken identity. If the incident in question fell into one of these categories and there was clear evidence to overturn the on-field decision, then Spurs should have been awarded a penalty.
  2. Chelsea’s disallowed late winner: Again, the specifics of the incident are crucial for a proper analysis. VAR typically reviews goals for potential infringements such as offside, fouls, or handballs. If Chelsea’s late winner was disallowed due to a clear and obvious error in accordance with the Laws of the Game, then the VAR decision would be deemed correct. However, if there was controversy or debate surrounding the decision, it could fuel further discussions about the effectiveness and consistency of VAR.
  3. Cody Gakpo and Alphonse Areola incident: Once more, details are necessary to fully assess this incident. If there was a contentious challenge or potential foul committed by either player, VAR would intervene if the on-field officials missed it and it met the criteria for review. The ultimate determination of whether the VAR decision was correct would depend on the evidence available and whether it aligned with the Laws of the Game.

Overall, VAR’s impact on Premier League matches is undeniable, with its decisions often sparking debate and scrutiny. While it aims to improve the accuracy of refereeing decisions, its implementation and interpretation of incidents remain subjects of ongoing discussion and evaluation.

Tottenham 2-3 Arsenal

In this scenario, it appears there was a potential penalty incident involving Trossard’s challenge on Kulusevski, which was not awarded by the referee, Michael Oliver. Following this non-call, Arsenal quickly transitioned into a counter-attack, resulting in Bukayo Saka scoring a goal.

Regarding the potential penalty decision, VAR would likely intervene if there was clear and obvious evidence of a foul that the on-field officials missed. VAR reviews incidents for penalty decisions if there is a possible error by the on-field referee, including missed fouls or incorrect calls. If VAR determined that Trossard’s challenge on Kulusevski warranted a penalty kick due to a clear foul, then the decision not to award the penalty would be deemed incorrect.

However, if there was minimal or no contact between Trossard and Kulusevski, and it was a legitimate challenge, then the decision to allow play to continue would stand. VAR typically respects the on-field referee’s judgment unless there is compelling evidence to overturn it.

The subsequent counter-attack and goal scored by Arsenal would then be valid, as the play continued according to the referee’s decision at the time. If there were any issues regarding offside, fouls, or other infringements during the buildup to the goal, VAR would have reviewed those aspects as well. Ultimately, the correctness of the decisions made by VAR depends on the application of the Laws of the Game and the interpretation of the incident in question.

VAR review

It seems like the incident involving Trossard’s challenge on Kulusevski was a pivotal moment in the match, with potential implications for both the penalty decision and the subsequent goal scored by Arsenal. The comparison with previous penalty decisions, such as those involving Craig Pawson’s decision to award a penalty to Wolves and send off David Luiz or Paul Pogba’s penalty against Aston Villa, highlights the inconsistency in how such incidents are interpreted and adjudicated.

In instances where a defending player makes contact with an attacker, even if it’s inadvertent or minimal, and impedes their movement without making a legitimate challenge for the ball, penalties have been awarded. However, the threshold for what constitutes a clear and obvious error varies, and not every instance of contact leads to a penalty being awarded through VAR.

In the case of Kulusevski’s challenge, where his boot touched Trossard’s leg as he moved forward, the decision not to award a penalty may have been influenced by the subjective interpretation of the incident. While some may argue that any contact should result in a penalty, others may contend that the contact was not significant enough to warrant intervention from VAR.

Ultimately, the application of VAR in such situations involves a nuanced assessment of the incident and adherence to the principles outlined in the Laws of the Game. While consistency in decision-making is desirable, the subjective nature of football incidents means that VAR’s interventions can sometimes vary from one match to another.

Possible offside: Van de Ven when scoring

It seems that Micky van de Ven believed he had scored an equalizer for Tottenham in the 22nd minute by firing home from close range. However, the goal was subjected to a VAR check for offside.

In situations like these, VAR typically reviews the goal to ensure that there were no offside infringements in the buildup to the goal. If any player involved in the attacking phase of play, including the goal scorer, was found to be in an offside position when the ball was played to them, the goal would be disallowed.

The outcome of the VAR check would depend on whether any Tottenham player was deemed to be offside during the attacking sequence leading up to the goal. If there was clear evidence of offside, the goal would be ruled out, but if the players were onside, the goal would stand.

The use of VAR aims to ensure the accuracy of goal decisions and maintain the integrity of the game by minimizing errors related to offside calls and other incidents.

VAR review

In the VAR review of the goal scored by Micky van de Ven for Tottenham, the offside phase was determined to be set at the point when Pedro Porro struck the shot. Although Takehiro Tomiyasu attempted to block the shot and the ball subsequently deflected off Gabriel’s head before reaching Van de Ven, neither of these actions reset the offside phase to put Van de Ven back onside.

According to the offside law, a defender’s action must be a “deliberate play” of the ball to reset the offside phase. In this context, a “deliberate play” refers to a defender having the genuine expectation of a controlled outcome from their action. In the case of an instinctive block of a shot hit with power, it is deemed that the defender’s action does not meet the criteria of a “deliberate play.” Therefore, Van de Ven remains active from the moment Porro struck the shot, and the offside decision stands.

The interpretation of the offside law in this situation aims to maintain fairness and consistency in applying the rules of the game. By considering the intent and control behind a defender’s action, VAR seeks to make accurate decisions regarding offside calls and uphold the integrity of the sport.

Possible penalty: Rice challenge on Davies

In the incident involving Ben Davies and Declan Rice, there was a moment of controversy as referee Michael Oliver initially indicated no penalty after Davies went down following what appeared to be contact from Rice. However, VAR, led by Jarred Gillett, quickly intervened and instructed Oliver to review the incident on the pitchside monitor, ultimately awarding a penalty to Tottenham Hotspur.

The dynamics of this incident differ from others seen in recent weeks, particularly in terms of the level of contact and the intentions of the players involved. Rice was attempting to clear the ball, and Davies moved into the path of his clearance. The ball deflected off Davies’ left thigh, causing it to deviate from Rice’s intended path, leading to inadvertent contact between Rice’s foot and Davies’ right thigh.

Referee Oliver’s decision to initially dismiss the penalty appeal suggests he believed there was minimal or no contact on Davies. However, upon reviewing the incident on the pitchside monitor, he likely reconsidered his decision after seeing the angle and extent of the contact between Rice and Davies.

It’s noteworthy that this is only the second time Oliver has been instructed by VAR to review his decision on the pitchside monitor this season. Despite some discussions about VAR’s reluctance to send Oliver to the screen, the Premier League’s Key Match Incidents Panel has determined that only one review was missed in his games, highlighting the overall effectiveness of VAR in ensuring accurate decisions are made on the field.

Aston Villa 2-2 Chelsea

Possible disallowed goal: Challenge by Badiashile on Carlos

In the incident involving Chelsea’s disallowed 95th-minute winner, the controversy centered around a possible foul by Benoit Badiashile on Diego Carlos as the goal was scored. Although Chelsea players celebrated what they believed to be a late winning goal, VAR, with Chris Kavanagh overseeing, intervened to review the incident.

The VAR decision, while straightforward in terms of the rules, sparked debate over where the line is drawn for what constitutes a foul in football. Examples such as Joelinton’s contact on Gabriel before Anthony Gordon’s goal for Newcastle against Arsenal or Morgan Gibbs-White’s similar move on Nélson Semedo before scoring for Nottingham Forest against Wolverhampton Wanderers were cited. In both cases, the goals were allowed to stand despite contact being made.

The timing of the incident also added to the controversy, as Chelsea’s disallowed goal would have provided them with a dramatic late winner after coming back from two goals down. Mauricio Pochettino’s comments about wanting to protect the spectacle and the decision reflect the desire for consistency and fairness in refereeing decisions, especially in crucial moments of the game.

Ultimately, while the VAR decision may have disappointed Chelsea and their fans, it underscores the importance of adhering to the rules and maintaining consistency in officiating, even in high-stakes situations.

You bring up an important point about the dynamics of the incident and the reactions of the players involved. While immediate appeals by fouled players can sometimes influence the referee’s decision-making process, they are not always definitive indicators of whether a foul occurred. In this case, the lack of an immediate appeal by Matty Cash, followed shortly afterward by Diego Carlos indicating a foul, adds another layer of complexity to the situation.

The challenge faced by VAR and the on-field referee, Craig Pawson, lies in determining the level of contact and the intent behind it. In instances where a player is waiting to make a play on the ball, as Carlos was, any significant contact that disrupts their ability to do so may warrant a foul being awarded. Badiashile’s shoulder barge into Carlos’s back, which altered his position and prevented him from making a play on the ball, could be interpreted as a foul.

Shoulder-to-shoulder challenges are often considered fair attempts to outmuscle opponents, but the context of the situation, including the player’s positioning and intent, must be taken into account. If Badiashile’s challenge was deemed to have impeded Carlos’s ability to contest the ball fairly, it could be considered a foul, regardless of whether it was shoulder-to-shoulder.

Ultimately, the decision-making process for VAR and the on-field referee involves analyzing various factors to determine whether a foul occurred. While player reactions and the nature of the challenge play a role in this assessment, the final decision aims to uphold the integrity of the game and maintain consistency in officiating standards.

You make a valid observation about the potential difference in how fouls are perceived depending on whether they occur during attacking or defending phases of play. It’s often the case that the threshold for awarding fouls against defenders may be higher than for attackers, given the defensive responsibilities of players.

In scenarios where a player is knocked off the path of the ball, whether it’s an attacking player impeding a defender or vice versa, the decision to award a foul can indeed be influenced by various factors, including the severity of the contact and the context of the situation.

Regarding the incident involving Wolves’ disallowed equalizer against AFC Bournemouth, where Hwang Hee-Chan’s goal was disallowed for a foul in the buildup by Matheus Cunha on Justin Kluivert, the subjective nature of VAR decisions comes into play.michiganfootballschedule In instances where fouls are subtle or barely noticeable on replays, the interpretation of the incident becomes crucial in determining whether the goal should stand or be disallowed.

While some may argue that the threshold for awarding fouls in such situations should be consistent regardless of whether they occur during attacking or defending phases of play, the reality is that interpretations can vary based on individual referees and VAR officials, leading to occasional inconsistencies in decision-making.

Overall, the discussion highlights the challenges faced by VAR in assessing the nuances of fouls and maintaining consistency in applying the rules of the game across different situations.

West Ham 2-2 Liverpool

The incident you described highlights the importance of clear communication between players, referees, and VAR officials during matches. In this case, Liverpool won a corner, and after a shot by Ryan Gravenberch, goalkeeper Alphonse Areola caught the ball on the line under pressure from Cody Gakpo.

Referee Anthony Taylor identified it as a foul but signaled for play to continue as Areola appeared to have control of the ball. However, Areola seemed to believe that a free kick had been given in his favor, possibly due to his initial reaction of going down holding his ankle. This misunderstanding led to a breakdown in communication, as Areola wasn’t aware that Taylor had played the advantage.

As a result, Areola prepared to kick the ball long, assuming a free kick had been awarded. However, since Taylor had played the advantage, Gakpo would have been within his rights to put the ball into the net. This situation underscores the importance of players being aware of the referee’s decisions and understanding when advantage is being played.

Clear communication and understanding of the rules are essential for maintaining the flow of the game and ensuring fair play. Instances like these serve as learning opportunities for players, referees, and VAR officials to improve coordination and minimize confusion during matches.

It sounds like there were several layers to the decision-making process by referee Anthony Taylor in this particular incident. While referees are tasked with managing the match and making decisions in the spirit of the game, sometimes situations arise that require judgment calls based on the context and dynamics of the moment.

In this case, Taylor may have felt that he needed to rectify a potential mistake by ensuring that the goalkeeper, Areola, was aware of the advantage being played. By blowing the whistle to stop play before Gakpo could potentially score, Taylor may have aimed to maintain fairness and integrity in the match, even if it meant rewinding to address a possible oversight in managing the advantage.

Indeed, awarding the free kick when Areola initially went down or when he tossed the ball forward could have avoided confusion and ambiguity. Additionally, checking on Areola for a possible injury rather than retreating up the pitch might have provided clarity and reassurance to all involved.

Ultimately, while the sequence of events may have been complex and open to interpretation, Taylor’s decision to stop play and address the situation as he saw fit was aimed at upholding the principles of fair play and ensuring a balanced and equitable outcome for both teams.

Possible penalty: Berge challenge on Garnacho

In the first incident involving Alejandro Garnacho, he went down in the penalty area after a challenge by Sander Berge. Referee John Brooks allowed play to continue, judging that there was no foul. Upon VAR review, it was determined that while there was contact between Berge and Garnacho, Berge had clearly made a touch on the ball first. Additionally, the nature of the challenge was not deemed careless or reckless, so VAR did not judge it to be a clear and obvious error worthy of a penalty.

In the second incident, Burnley was on the attack when Manchester United’s Casemiro attempted to head the ball back to goalkeeper André Onana, but Aaron Wan-Bissaka cleared it away. However, Onana had rushed out and collided with Zeki Amdouni in the process. Referee John Brooks did not initially award a penalty, but the incident was checked by VAR, with Peter Bankes overseeing the review.

The outcome of the VAR review was not explicitly mentioned, but it’s likely that the decision not to award a penalty was upheld. VAR typically intervenes in penalty decisions when there is a clear and obvious error by the on-field referee. If the collision between Onana and Amdouni was deemed accidental and not a foul, the original decision of no penalty would stand.

Overall, both incidents highlight the role of VAR in ensuring that key decisions, especially those involving penalty calls, are made accurately and fairly, based on the criteria outlined in the Laws of the Game.

These incidents highlight the complexity and subjectivity involved in VAR decisions, particularly in penalty situations, where interpretations of contact and fouls can vary.

In the case of André Onana’s collision with Zeki Amdouni, it’s noted that a similar incident occurred earlier in the season involving Onana and Sasa Kalajdzic. The VAR’s decision not to intervene in that instance was deemed an error by PGMOL. Here, the VAR review might have warranted a penalty call if Onana’s challenge was reckless or if he did not make a genuine attempt to play the ball.

Regarding the handball incident involving Vitinho, the decision not to advise a penalty might have been influenced by factors such as the proximity of Vitinho’s hand to his body and the speed of the ball. While Manchester United may feel aggrieved, consistency in applying the handball rule can sometimes be challenging, as seen in previous decisions.

The incident involving Mason Holgate’s contact on Anthony Gordon was also closely scrutinized by VAR to determine whether the foul occurred inside or outside the penalty area. Referee Tony Harrington awarded the penalty for the second contact, prompting VAR to assess the location of that contact.

Ultimately, the interpretation of these incidents depends on various factors, including the referee’s judgment, the specific actions of the players involved, and the guidelines set forth in the Laws of the Game. While some decisions may provoke debate and controversy, VAR aims to ensure fairness and accuracy in refereeing decisions to uphold the integrity of the game.

Possible penalty overturn: Murphy challenge on Bogle

In the incident involving Alex Murphy and Jayden Bogle, referee Harrington initially awarded a penalty to Sheffield United in the 90th minute after Murphy appeared to foul Bogle. However, the decision was checked by VAR.

During the VAR review, it was determined that Murphy made contact with the ball before the coming together with Bogle, suggesting that the challenge was fair. Even if the referee had not decided to cancel the foul and restart play with a dropped ball, it could be argued that Murphy had to go through Bogle to reach the ball, though this contact would have occurred outside the penalty area.

In the second incident, Antoine Semenyo crossed into the area and was caught by a challenge from Valentín Barco. Referee Paul Tierney did not spot the nature of the challenge initially, but it was checked by VAR, overseen by Chris Kavanagh.

The VAR decision was not to award a penalty. However, upon review, it was deemed that Barco’s challenge should have led to a VAR review and a penalty kick. Barco’s off-the-ground challenge into Semenyo, which brought him down after he released the cross, was considered unfair. While there may be a reluctance to penalize challenges after a ball has been released inside the area, especially if it’s a shot, this tackle crossed the line in terms of fairness and legality.

These incidents underscore the importance of VAR in ensuring that key decisions, such as penalty calls, are made accurately and fairly based on the criteria outlined in the Laws of the Game. While some decisions may be contentious, VAR’s role is to uphold the integrity of the game and ensure consistency in officiating standards.

Possible penalty: Robinson challenge on Muñoz

In the incident involving Daniel Muñoz and Antonee Robinson, Muñoz collected a pass from Jean-Philippe Mateta and went down as Robinson closed in from behind in the 10th minute. Referee Stuart Attwell chose not to award a penalty and restarted play with a goal kick. However, the incident was reviewed by VAR.

The VAR review likely considered similar incidents, such as the one between Joao Pedro and Josko Gvardiol in the game between Brighton & Hove Albion and Manchester City. In both cases, there were genuine claims for a penalty, with contact occurring as the attacker attempted to progress towards goal.

However, in recent Premier League matches, penalties haven’t been consistently awarded for this type of contact, where there is no clear challenge on the opponent and a valid argument can be made for a coming together or natural contact. This inconsistency raises questions about the interpretation of fouls and penalties in such situations.

Comparing these incidents to penalties won by players like Anthony Gordon for Newcastle through on-field decisions highlights the subjective nature of penalty calls. While some penalties are awarded based on similar levels of contact, others are not, leading to debates about consistency and fairness in refereeing decisions.

Ultimately, the decision to award a penalty in these situations depends on various factors, including the interpretation of the Laws of the Game and the judgment of the referee and VAR officials. Consistency and clarity in applying the rules are essential to ensure fairness and integrity in officiating standards.

 

Possible penalty: Handball by Tarkowski

 

In the 73rd minute of the match between Brentford and Everton, Brentford won a corner kick, and Ivan Toney flicked the ball on at the near post. The ball then ran harmlessly into the grasp of Everton goalkeeper Jordan Pickford, but there was a handball by James Tarkowski, which went unnoticed by the on-field officials. The incident was subsequently checked by VAR, with Michael Oliver overseeing the review.

The VAR review likely relied on replays from behind the goal to identify the touch of Tarkowski’s hand, as it would have been challenging for the referee and his on-field team to see in real-time. However, despite the handball being confirmed by VAR, the decision was made not to intervene and award a penalty.

This decision is consistent with the approach of VAR in the Premier League, where only obvious handball offenses, such as when the arm is well away from the body or above the head, typically result in intervention. This leniency contrasts with the approach seen in other leagues, such as LaLiga, where handball offenses may be penalized more strictly.

The decision not to intervene on the possible handball by Tarkowski, similar to the decision regarding Ashley Young’s handball against Nottingham Forest last week, reflects the interpretation of handball rules in the Premier League, which prioritize clear and obvious offenses.

About admin

Check Also

Leeds thrash Norwich to reach Championship playoff final

Leeds United are on the brink of making an immediate return to the Premier League …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Powered by WordPress | Designed by TieLabs
© Copyright 2024, All Rights Reserved