EPL NEWS LIVE VAR review: West Ham goal, Liverpool offside, Odegaard handball

VAR review: West Ham goal, Liverpool offside, Odegaard handball

Dec. 28: Arsenal 0-2 West Ham United

Possible ball out of play: Soucek goal

Dec. 23: Liverpool 1-1 Arsenal

Possible penalty: Handball by Odegaard

Possible penalty: Alexander-Arnold challenge on Havertz

Dec. 26: Burnley 0-2 Liverpool

Possible goal: No foul by Nunez on Taylor

Possible offside: Salah on Elliott goal

Dec. 27: Everton 1-3 Manchester City

Possible penalty overturn: Handball by Onana

VAR review: Everton boss Sean Dyche complained that it wasn’t deliberate, yet the law is much more about making the body unnaturally bigger than it being a deliberate act. And even if there can still be an argument that an arm position is a consequence of natural movement, the higher it is raised the more likely it will be penalised.

Onana’s arm is up and it blocks a shot, which means there’s always a strong chance a penalty will be awarded — however harsh it might seem.

The handball law as it is today can only bring inconsistencies in decision making, because there are just so many clauses and exemptions for referees to take into account. Gone are the days when “common sense” decisions could be made. Onana’s handball is definitely what we can term a “modern penalty.”

So should Manchester United have been awarded a penalty for a raised arm by Tottenham Hotspur’s Cristian Romero at the start of the season then? Romero’s was out, but not at head level like it was with Onana. But you can’t blame supporters for being confused at how one is a spot kick and the other isn’t, there being similarities over arm position and proximity.

What happened: Aston Villa thought they had taken the lead in the 59th minute when Leon Bailey fired home from Ollie Watkins’ square pass, but there was a VAR check for a foul in the buildup on goalkeeper Wes Foderingham.

VAR review: Morally, it feels right that this goal was ruled out because there was a clear foul on Foderingham, with Jacob Ramsey holding onto the goalkeeper’s arm as he jumped to punch away the ball.

But in protocol, it’s a different matter and perhaps the goal should have counted.

Five Sheffield United players touched the ball before Watkins regained possession and eventually created the goal. So, how can the attacking phase remain the same?

The first four touches would be irrelevant, as the phase can only be reset by controlled possession and not involuntary deflections or stretched plays.

Yet when George Baldock took the ball he was able to move forward with it at his feet, taking three touches. Surely that has to be controlled possession to reset the phase, meaning the VAR cannot go back and disallow the goal for the foul on Foderingham?

But there are other clauses in the protocol: the ball still being in and around the penalty area should be considered, while the referee and VAR must take into account “what football expects.”

Opinion will be split, as it was such an obvious foul on Foderingham which meant he couldn’t clear the ball and that, directly or indirectly, led to the goal. But with Baldock having control of the ball, both sides have valid arguments.

While Ramsey was also having his shirt held by a defender, there wasn’t enough in this for it to be considered a penalty.

Dec. 27: Chelsea 2-1 Crystal Palace

Possible penalty: Foul on Nkunku by Richards

What happened: Christopher Nkunku broke into the area in the first half and went to ground, appearing to take a fresh air shot. Referee Michael Salisbury waved away the penalty appeals, and it was checked by the VAR, Chris Kavanagh (watch here.)

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: Arsenal fans will no doubt point to the red card David Luiz received against Wolves in February 2021 in similar circumstances. Willian José was through on goal and his studs clipped the knee of Luiz, who hadn’t made a challenge. A penalty was awarded on the field, with the Arsenal player sent off for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

The Gunners lost an appeal against the dismissal because in law a penalty and red card isn’t an incorrect decision — yet it remains subjective.

This incident was very similar in nature, with Nkunku catching the leg of Chris Richards as he drew his foot back to shoot.

It’s a penalty that would have to be given by the referee. Likewise, if Luiz hadn’t been penalised then the VAR would have got involved.

Possible offside: Jackson when scoring

What happened: Nicolas Jackson had the ball in the back of the net in the 76th minute, but had he strayed offside? (watch here)

VAR decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR review: There’s a clear gap in the offside lines from when Thiago Silva played the ball forward, but the ball came off Eberechi Eze before it fell to Jackson, so how could it be offside?

The law demands that Eze’s actions are a controlled, deliberate play of the ball for the phase to be reset; a block doesn’t count. It’s a deflection, so the phase remains active from when Silva got involved.

Possible penalty: Eze foul on Madueke

What happened: Chelsea were on the attack in the 85th minute when the ball dropped to the edge of the area. Eze challenged Noni Madueke, with the Chelsea player going to ground. Crystal Palace looked to break but could make nothing of it. When play stopped, the VAR advised a review (watch here.)

VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Madueke.

VAR review: There’s a clear bend of Madueke’s knee as Eze makes contact, so an easy penalty for the VAR to send to the pitchside monitor.

Referee Salisbury was probably uncertain as the two players moved their legs in a similar fashion, across each other. Eze’s reaction at the point of contact made it clear he was concerned he had committed a foul, and the spot kick was the correct decision.

Dec. 28: Brighton 4-2 Tottenham

Possible penalty: Kulusevski foul on Welbeck

What happened: The ball bounced across the penalty area in the 20th minute and just as Danny Welbeck looked to get on the end of it he went to ground claiming a penalty. Referee Jarred Gillett played on but a few moments later the VAR advised play should be stopped for a review (watch here.)

VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Joao Pedro.

VAR review: Pushing and pulling happens inside the area all the time; for a penalty it’s about judging when that crosses from normal football contact into something which impedes an opponent.

This was an obvious spot kick, with Dejan Kulusevski creating the “coat-hanger effect” by pulling the shirt out from the body. That’s not the only determining factor, as whether that pulling is prolonged and if it has a clear impact being able to play the ball is also taken into account.

Kulusevski was booked for the foul, and Gillett would have talked through a possible red card at the monitor for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. There was just enough doubt to prevent the red card, with a possible challenge by a defender.

It’s been compared to Aston Villa striker Watkins’ penalty appeal against Sheffield United just before Christmas, but the two freeze frames alone don’t tell the full story.

There’s a case for a foul Vinicius Souza, who has a hand on Watkins, though probably not enough for the VAR spot kick. And while Souza does then have hold of the striker’s shirt as he goes to ground, this isn’t in the act of pulling him back from playing the ball, as happened to Welbeck.

Dec. 23: Tottenham 2-1 Everton

Possible foul: Gomes on Emerson

What happened: Everton thought they had pulled a goal back in the 50th minute when André Gomes won the ball off Emerson Royal, and played in Dominic Calvert-Lewin to score. However the VAR, Michael Oliver, began a check for a foul in the buildup.

VAR decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR review: It’s a foul, but is there enough in it to be classed a clear and obvious error? It’s on the borderline. The camera angle from behind the goal seems definitive, which appears to show Gomes going into the back of Emerson with his knee and causing the Spurs player to lose the ball.