Would VAR have awarded Aston Villa's controversial 'goal' at Man United?

Video Assistant Referee causes contention each week successful the Premier League, but however are decisions made, and are they correct?

After each play we instrumentality a look astatine the large incidents to analyse and explicate the process some successful presumption of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

In this week's VAR Review: Would Morgan Rogers' extremity astatine Manchester United person counted had the referee not blown the whistle? Were the reddish cards for Aston Villa goalkeeper Emiliano Martínez and Liverpool midfielder Ryan Gravenberch correct? And did the VAR miss immoderate handball spot kicks connected the last matchday?

Man United 2-0 Aston Villa

Possible goal: Foul by Rogers connected Bayindir

What happened: Aston Villa were connected the onslaught successful the 72nd infinitesimal erstwhile Manchester United halfway backmost Harry Maguire nodded the shot backmost to his goalkeeper, Altay Bayindir. The 27-year-old hesitated slightly, allowing the shot to rotation successful his gloves, and Morgan Rogers nipped successful to bargain it. But earlier helium could enactment the shot into the bare net, referee Thomas Bramall blew for a foul connected Rogers for playing a shot that was nether Bayindir's control.

VAR decision: No involution possible.

Verdict: The VAR was locked retired of the determination due to the fact that arsenic soon arsenic Bramall blew his whistle, the play was dormant -- thing that happened aft that point, including a imaginable goal, is void. The referee should person waited, but helium was excessively speedy to penalize the foul.

The wording connected the instrumentality astir a goalkeeper being successful power of the shot is clunky. It defines it as: "The shot is betwixt the hands oregon betwixt the manus and immoderate aboveground (e.g. ground, ain body) oregon by touching it with immoderate portion of the hands oregon arms, but if the shot rebounds from the goalkeeper oregon the goalkeeper has made a save."

Taking that connected look value, it would suggest that simply "touching it with immoderate portion of the hands oregon arms" defines control. In this case, the VAR's cardinal information would beryllium Bayindir having some hands connected the ball, oregon it being connected the crushed with the keeper having a manus connected it. The shot conscionable being successful interaction with Bayindir's mitt wouldn't beryllium capable to suffice arsenic control.

The VAR would beryllium looking for 3 things: does the keeper person his mitt connected the shot erstwhile it is touching the ground? Does Rogers footwear the shot erstwhile it is successful some of Bayindir's hands? Does Rogers footwear the opponent's hand? The reply to each 3 is no. So connected VAR review, the extremity would person been given.

After Rogers kicked the ball, it past ended up successful some of Bayindir's gloves, but helium failed to clasp it. The adjacent interaction from Rogers came erstwhile the shot was again loose.

Villa person past acquisition of this law. In December 2021, they had a extremity disallowed against Leicester City erstwhile goalkeeper Kasper Schmeichel had his fingertips connected apical of the shot arsenic it was kicked into the nett by Jacob Ramsey, with the VAR intervening to regularisation retired the goal.

It caused a large woody of controversy, due to the fact that it was felt that a keeper cannot beryllium successful power if they are lone conscionable touching it, but the regularisation says they are erstwhile the shot is grounded.

Villa were understandably furious with Rogers' extremity being ruled out: With the people astatine 0-0 and 18 minutes to beryllium played, results successful different fixtures meant a constituent would person been capable to get them into the UEFA Champions League. Villa's main ailment was implicit the acquisition of the referee for specified a large game, with Bramall taking complaint of his 11th top-flight crippled of the play and the 30th of his vocation (his archetypal astatine Old Trafford). Yet Tony Harrington, successful the mediate for Newcastle United vs. Everton, was refereeing lone his 37th Premier League game.

Bramall has moved betwixt the Championship and the Premier League passim the season, though helium has progressively been fixed higher-profile games. He refereed Liverpool's title-winning crippled against Tottenham Hotspur past month.

The appointments are ever stretched connected the last day, with 30 to beryllium made crossed referee, VAR and 4th official, and lone 20 Select Group 1 referees. Bramall has done large playoff matches before, but having Peter Bankes oregon John Brooks, who were some connected VAR duty, arsenic referee whitethorn person made much sense. Michael Oliver lone acted arsenic VAR for Spurs vs. Brighton & Hove Albion, though arsenic a Newcastle protagonist helium was improbable to beryllium fixed a final-day crippled involving 1 of the Magpies' rivals for the Champions League.

VAR protocol is wide that the referee should clasp the whistle for immoderate contiguous scoring chance, and that applies to a foul and not conscionable offside. Bramall evidently felt helium was definite the goalkeeper was successful power of the shot erstwhile Rogers kicked it, and that's fine; successful existent clip it's casual to travel to that conclusion. But with the shot wrong the punishment area, helium should person waited a mates of seconds to spot what happened earlier stopping play. Maybe helium (mistakenly) thought that with play implicit to the near of the area, determination was nary scoring chance.

Maybe it's a small much hard for referees earlier successful their vocation with VAR. It's the 2nd clip this play a extremity has been wrongly disallowed owed to an aboriginal whistle. In August, Sam Barrott stopped play aft a escaped footwear was taken by Eberechi Eze, penalizing Crystal Palace's Will Hughes for a foul connected Brentford's Nathan Collins -- but Eze had caught retired Bees goalkeeper Mark Flekken with a changeable from distance. The whistle went earlier the shot went in, but the VAR couldn't get progressive to archer the referee determination was nary foul by Hughes. Barrott, who has since been promoted to the FIFA and UEFA planetary lists, was refereeing lone his 20th crippled with VAR.

Possible reddish paper overturn: DOGSO by Martínez

What happened: Rasmus Højlund ran onto a mediocre back-pass from Matty Cash successful first-half stoppage time. Villa keeper Emiliano Martínez came retired of his country and brought down Højlund aft the striker had nudged the shot past him. Referee Bramall produced the reddish paper for denying an evident goal-scoring accidental (DOGSO), which was supported by the VAR.

VAR decision: Red paper stands.

VAR review: Last weekend, Crystal Palace goalkeeper Dean Henderson escaped a DOGSO reddish card successful the FA Cup aft handling the shot extracurricular the country arsenic Manchester City's Erling Haaland ran done connected goal.

The referee astatine Wembley was Stuart Attwell, and helium was connected VAR for this decision. Yet we shouldn't expect some to effect successful the aforesaid outcome, particularly if the wide statement was that his determination to not nonstop disconnected Henderson was incorrect.

DOGSO is ever astir weighing up a assortment of criteria, and not concentrating excessively overmuch connected 1 circumstantial aspect. That said, we've heard galore times this play however the wide absorption of the play being distant from extremity is precise important, and that has often been the crushed wherefore the VAR hasn't gotten progressive to upgrade yellowish to red. Højlund's interaction taking the shot into a wider country whitethorn person led to the VAR supporting a yellowish card, if the referee had chosen that sanction.

Henderson's was a clearer reddish paper arsenic his handball prevented Haaland from taking a interaction toward goal, lone the handball discourtesy forced the shot wide. With Højlund, we knew the result of the striker's play of the ball, which was into the channel.

Verdict: As Højlund is past the goalkeeper with the shot successful beforehand of him, the VAR isn't going to archer the referee a DOGSO reddish paper is simply a mistake here. After all, it's akin to what Rogers did, admittedly from person to goal. But we've seen akin situations successful which a yellowish by the referee has been supported connected video review. As ever, the archetypal determination of the referee carries the weight, and that's what creates the cognition of inconsistency due to the fact that the VAR's relation isn't to marque decisions based upon precedent.

Possible punishment overturn: Foul by Maatsen connected Amad

What happened: Man United were awarded a punishment successful the 85th infinitesimal erstwhile Amad went down successful the container nether a situation from Ian Maatsen, and it was checked by the VAR.

VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Christian Eriksen.

VAR review: Maatsen whitethorn not person been attempting to situation the Manchester United attacker, but helium stood connected his boot, and that caused him to spell to ground.

Just similar erstwhile a defender clips a striker's heels from behind, intent to origin a foul isn't important: Amad went to crushed due to the fact that of the interaction from Maatsen.

Verdict: With wide grounds of interaction from defender connected attacker, there's nary likelihood the VAR is going to get progressive to overturn specified a penalty.

Liverpool 1-1 Crystal Palace

Possible penalty: Handball by Lacroix

What happened: Mohamed Salah chopped wrong for a changeable successful the 50th minute, which was deflected down for a country disconnected Maxence Lacroix. Salah was adamant that Liverpool should person been awarded for a punishment for handball, and it was looked astatine by the VAR, Paul Howard.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: A adjacent telephone for Lacroix, arsenic determination appeared to beryllium immoderate question of the elbow to get successful the mode of Salah's shot.

However, the shot came disconnected the Crystal Palace player's little arm, astir the wrist area, which was precise adjacent to his side.

Verdict: Had the shot deed the defender's elbow, this should person been a punishment for deliberate handball -- though it wouldn't person been a reddish paper for denying a extremity arsenic the goalkeeper was straight down Lacroix.

Possible reddish paper overturn: DOGSO by Gravenberch

What happened: Ryan Gravenberch was sent disconnected for DOGSO successful the 68th infinitesimal aft bringing down Daichi Kamada. Was determination a question of the prime of the scoring chance? It was checked by the VAR.

VAR decision: Red paper stands.

VAR review: We've seen a fewer DOGSO reddish cards this play successful which the attacker has been brought down adjacent to the halfway line; William Saliba, Myles Lewis-Skelly and Mateo Kovacic were the notable ones.

The question was whether the interaction by Kamada was excessively heavy, meaning determination was a likelihood that goalkeeper Alisson Becker would person been capable to intercept the shot first?

Alisson was retired of his country (though starting to determination back) and the shot was bouncing done with a grade of velocity -- and that did make immoderate uncertainty for a reddish card.

Compare that to Saliba's reddish paper vs. Bournemouth, fixed done VAR, wherever the shot was coming to a halt halfway to extremity and goalkeeper David Raya was backtracking afloat into his area. Because of this, Kamada had little of a scoring accidental than Evanilson, erstwhile helium was brought down by Saliba.

Verdict: Had the referee produced a yellowish card, the VAR whitethorn good person supported that owed to the anticipation that Alisson would person intercepted earlier Kamada could shoot. That uncertainty wasn't contiguous connected the Saliba reddish card, which is wherefore determination was a VAR involution to upgrade to red.

It's borderline for the VAR to measurement successful connected the Gravenberch sending off, and the Liverpool midfielder is astir apt a small unfortunate. It's somewhat moot, however, arsenic Gravenberch was already connected a caution, truthful helium inactive would person been sent disconnected had the referee produced a yellowish card. Either authorisation would person seen the midfielder dismissed and fixed a one-match suspension.

However, arsenic it was a consecutive reddish card, Liverpool would person the enactment to appeal. The quirk is that the suspension would beryllium removed, alternatively than the reddish downgraded to a yellowish and the prohibition staying successful place, though an entreaty is highly improbable to beryllium successful.

Southampton 1-2 Arsenal

Possible penalty: Handball by Rice

What happened: Yukinari Sugawara deed a changeable from region successful the 20th minute, with the shot coming disconnected Declan Rice and going down for a corner. It was checked for a spot footwear by the VAR, Graham Scott (watch here).

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: Premier League referees person been accordant passim the play successful lone penalizing handball erstwhile the limb has been afloat extended distant from the body, high, oregon there's a deliberate act. But does that acceptable with the imaginable Rice handball?

One of the considerations for the VAR is the presumption of the limb erstwhile the changeable is taken, and wherever it is erstwhile it's deed by the ball. So if the limb hasn't moved and is successful an expected presumption for the player's movement, past it shouldn't beryllium a penalty. And this is wherever determination was a question for Rice.

After Sugawara deed the shot, Rice had his near limb down his back.

Rice did person his limb adjacent to his body, but it past came up into a raised presumption and blocked the shot.

Verdict: There were lone 9 handball penalties successful the Premier League this season, acold less than the remainder of the apical leagues. The Key Match Incidents Panel hasn't ruled that a VAR has missed 1 either, though it did consciousness the referee should person fixed Nottingham Forest a spot footwear against Wolverhampton Wanderers successful January.

Handball is successful a amended spot successful England than it is connected the continent, though there's an statement that, successful cases specified arsenic this, the mentation is simply a small excessively wide and it should beryllium a spot kick.

Newcastle 0-1 Everton

Possible penalty: Handball by Livramento

What happened: The crippled was successful the 47th infinitesimal erstwhile Jack Harrison burst into the country and fired a shot crossed the area. It deed the limb of Valentino Livramento, with Everton's players appealing for a penalty. Referee Tony Harrington wasn't funny truthful it was implicit to the VAR, Paul Tierney.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: The shot decidedly touches the manus of the Newcastle defender, but determination are a fewer reasons wherefore the VAR wouldn't counsel a spot kick.

First, the shot is flicked connected by Fabian Schär, which somewhat alters the trajectory. Livramento is besides trying to retract his limb distant from the way of the ball, and it hits him successful an expected presumption adjacent for his movement, adjacent to the body.

Verdict: While we tin question the imaginable punishment against Rice, determination was nary imaginable of this being a punishment connected review.

Some factual parts of this nonfiction see accusation provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.