Football Features

    How the 2024-25 Premier League table would look without VAR ‘errors’ after GW15

    By Squawka News

    How the 2024-25 Premier League table would look without VAR 'errors' after GW3

    Published: 16:55, 10 December 2024

    During the 2024-25 Premier League season, we’re asking Squawka followers to vote on each gameweek’s most controversial video assistant referee (VAR) calls.

    The results will form an alternative table so that, by next May, we can see which teams will be cursing VAR (and which will be secretly pleased the Premier League clubs didn’t vote to get rid of it).

    Or maybe it will even reveal that much criticism of VAR is overblown…

    The 2024-25 Premier League table without VAR ‘errors’

    The Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL) says that last season more than 100 errors were corrected by VAR.  Still, the Premier League acknowledges much work must be done to improve the perception of VAR. Why else would Wolves trigger a vote on whether it should be scrapped in June?

    While VAR will never be perfect, there have been the usual eyebrow-raising interventions — or lack thereof — during the opening 15 rounds of the 2024-25 fixtures.

    Gameweek 15 was a fairly quiet one in terms of incidents in matches, with three three involved in our polls. But there were some big calls in those matches, including a couple of red cards. We put the biggest talking points to our followers on X (formerly Twitter) for their opinions.

    Note: Our table has been compiled on the basis that penalties that should have been awarded would subsequently have been scored. Over the past seven seasons, 78% of Premier League penalties taken have been scored.

    How many VAR ‘errors’ have gone against your team?

    CLUB DECISIONS FOR DECISIONS AGAINST DIFFERENCE
    Man City 3 0 +3
    Leicester 3 0 +3
    West Ham 3 0 +3
    Liverpool 3 1 +2
    Newcastle 3 2 +1
    Tottenham 2 1 +1
    Brighton 1 0 +1
    Wolves 3 3 0
    Southampton 3 3 0
    Man United 2 2 0
    Aston Villa 0 1 -1
    Everton 1 3 -2
    Ipswich 0 2 -2
    Bournemouth 0 2 -2
    Chelsea 2 5 -3
    Crystal Palace 0 3 -3

    GW15 VAR controversies

    Did Moises Caicedo deserve a red card?

    • Match result: Tottenham 3-4 Chelsea
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (68.8%)

    Games between Tottenham and Chelsea are hardly quiet. This one wasn’t exactly the Battle of the Bridge, but there were still a few tasty challenges. The first one of note came just after the half-hour mark, with Moises Caicedo tackling Pape Matar Sarr. The Chelsea midfielder caught his Tottenham counterpart on the shin with his studs, missing the ball. There wasn’t much force in the tackle, but a lot of Tottenham fans — and neutrals — felt it was enough for a red card. Referee Anthony Taylor only awarded a free-kick, with no yellow card, and VAR agreed that it was not enough for a red.

    “That’s what is happening in the game now, referees are leaving it to other powers that be to make decisions,” Ange Postecoglou said.

    “There were a couple [of decisions] that didn’t go our way but there’s nothing we can do about that. It’s out of our control.”

    He added: “I’ve said it before… but I don’t think technology has helped our game. Instead of one person being in control, it feels like no one is in control.”

    Should Dejan Kulusevski have been sent off?

    • Match result: Tottenham 3-4 Chelsea
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (60.7%)

    Just before half-time, Chelsea felt they had a case of their own for Tottenham to go down to 10 men. Dejan Kulusevski was closing down Romeo Lavia looking to win the ball back for Tottenham. In doing so, the Swede’s elbow connected with Lavia’s head. A foul was given, but again the referee did not show a card, yellow or red. It was checked by VAR but they didn’t find enough to overturn the decision. After the game, Lavia posted a picture on social media with a cut on his head, and many felt Kulusevski should have seen red.

    Former Liverpool defender Stephen Warnock told Sky Sports’ Ref Watch: “Is that a natural position to run with? If I’m running full pelt, and you’re talking about intensity, that’s already in the run.

    “It doesn’t need to move, the arm, the speed you’re running at. From a short distance, I’d have to throw an elbow up to physically use it.

    “But if I take a run-up, and my arm is already up, and I hit you from a distance, that force has built up. Whether you’ve cocked your arm up or you’ve used the force of the speed of running in, it’s going to cause damage. I don’t understand how it can’t be deemed as aggressive and foul play.”

    Did Ipswich have a goal unfairly disallowed?

    • Match result: Ipswich 1-2 Bournemouth
    • VAR says: No goal
    • Squawka poll says: No goal (50.9%)

    Ipswich will be criticised for giving up a 1-0 lead late on against Bournemouth. But fans will have also thought they should have been 2-0 up. Cameron Burgess thought he had scored Ipswich’s second in the first half, but it was ruled out for a foul on the goalkeeper. This was a decision given on the pitch, which meant that it was up to VAR to determine if the foul was fair. After a review, the decision was confirmed, and the free-kick to Bournemouth stood. But Ipswich manager Kieran McKenna wasn’t happy.

    “I think the challenge from Liam [Delap] happens every week. It looks so similar to so many incidents I’ve seen this weekend but we get pulled up on it,” he said.

    But our X poll ruled in Bournemouth’s favour, ever so slightly.

    Were Wolves denied a penalty?

    • Match result: West Ham 2-1 Wolves
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (61.7%)

    Wolves’ hatred of VAR will continue, as they feel they should have had two penalties against West Ham. The first came just before their scored their equaliser, when Goncalo Guedes was brought down. The contact was close to the line, but the referee didn’t award anything. VAR looked at the decision, which many Wolves fans felt was inside the box. But VAR agreed with the on-pitch decision, ruling that the contanct had come outside the box — and they couldn’t award the free-kick. This brought a lot of criticism from both Wolves and Liverpool fans, who are still smarting after conceding a penalty in a similar incident against Southampton.

    Were Wolves denied a second penalty?

    • Match result: West Ham 2-1 Wolves
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (74.9%)

    This one hurt Wolves even more. They were chasing the game by this point and searching for an equaliser. Jean-Ricner Bellegarde had the ball in the West Ham box and was tackled by Konstantinos Mavropanos. But the Greek defender impeded Bellegarde by standing on his foot. Bellegarde went down, but the referee didn’t give anything. VAR reviewed the decision but deemed that there had been no clear and obvious error. The contact hadn’t been enough to send Bellegarde down, according to VAR. But Wolves fans felt it was a clear penalty.

    GW14 VAR controversies

    Should Ethan Pinnock have been sent off?

    • Match result: Aston Villa 3-1 Brentford
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (72.6%)

    This is a decision that wouldn’t have changed the impact of the match too much, but it was one worth reviewing. Ethan Pinnock brought Ollie Watkins down inside the area, with the referee awarding a penalty and a yellow card. The significant check here wasn’t for the penalty, which was pretty clear cut. Instead, it was checked for a potential red card on Pinnock. Now there is the double jeopardy rule when it comes to penalties, so VAR needed to decide whether Pinnock had made a genuine attempt to win the ball. And they did. This was a decision most agreed with, feeling a yellow was punishment enough alongside the penalty.

    Was Virgil van Dijk lucky?

    • Match result: Newcastle 3-3 Liverpool
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (59.1%)

    One of two talking points in Liverpool’s draw with Newcastle, this was the more controversial one. In the first half, Virgil van Dijk collided with Anthony Gordon off the ball in the box. As the ball was still in play, this was checked for both a red card and a penalty. Some felt it was a deliberate bodycheck by Van Dijk, worthy of a red card. But VAR judged that Van Dijk had led with his shoulder, so it wasn’t enough for a penalty or a red card. Fans disagreed.

    Should Jarrel Quansah have been penalised?

    • Match result: Newcastle 3-3 Liverpool
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (53.4%)

    A second penalty appeal for Newcastle, this time in the second half. Alexander Isak went down under a challenge from Jarell Quansah but the referee waved play on. At the next break in play it was checked, but VAR had spotted that Quansah had got a touch on the ball before making contact with Isak. While this isn’t always a defence against awarding a foul, it was deemed enough to rule out a penalty.

    Was Jack Stephens rightfully sent off?

    • Match result: Southampton 1-5 Chelsea
    • VAR says: Red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (70.1%)

    Two years ago, Cristian Romero was not penalised for pulling Marc Cucurella’s hair in a game between Chelsea and Tottenham, with VAR Mike Dean deciding he didn’t want to send Anthony Taylor to the screen. This time, Jack Stephens tried his luck for Southampton but didn’t get away with it. As hair pulls go, it wasn’t too forceful, and the argument from some was that it wasn’t enough to send Cucurella down. But hair pulling is violent conduct, so the VAR couldn’t do anything but recommend a red card.

    Should Everton have had five?

    • Match result: Everton 4-0 Wolves
    • VAR says: No goal
    • Squawka poll says: Goal (52.8%)

    If the relegation battle comes down to goal difference, Everton might have something to complain about. They beat Wolves 4-0, but they could have had a fifth. This would have been Everton’s second on the night, with James Tarkowski heading in from a Dwight McNeil free-kick. The goal was initially awarded by the referee, before being checked by VAR. And VAR spotted that Orel Mangala had blocked Mario Lemina’s defensive run while stood in an offside position. As this was a subjective offside decision on the impact of Mangala, the referee was sent to the screen before overturning his initial decision.

    GW13 VAR controversies

    Should Southampton have beat Brighton?

    • Match result: Brighton 1-1 Southampton
    • VAR says: No goal
    • Squawka poll says: Goal (70.9%)

    The Premier League weekend opened on Friday with Brighton and Southampton drawing 1-1. About 10 minutes after they equalised, though, Southampton thought they should have taken the lead. Cameron Archer put the ball in the back of the net but after a quick discussion with his assistant, the referee ruled the goal out for offside. The offence was on Adam Armstrong, who was in an offside position and deemed to have impacted Bart Verbruggen’s ability to play the ball. While we do not normally including offside calls in our polls, as they are factual, this was a subjective decision on a player impacting an opponent, and therefore more open to discussion and controversy.

    Southampton manager Russell Martin said: “We didn’t settle for a point, and we should have a goal. I’ve been told it’s disallowed because Adam Armstrong’s position affects the goalkeeper. I don’t think he does, the goalkeeper can’t get the cross, it goes behind Adam, it’s too far away from him to get the cross, and he doesn’t move position because of Adam’s position, so in my interpretation it doesn’t affect him enough for it to be offside, but because the on-pitch decision was that, it’s not clear and obvious enough to change.”

    Was Bournemouth’s second penalty fair?

    • Match result: Wolves 2-4 Bournemouth
    • VAR says: Penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (68.8%)

    Wolves’ home defeat to Bournemouth was a game of spot-kicks, with the Cherries scoring three. Two came in the first half, but the second wasn’t initially given. Jose Sa had brought down Evanilson in the penalty area and the referee didn’t deem it enough for a penalty. The decision was reviewed by VAR, who deemed there was sufficient contact from Sa on Evanilson, recommending an on-field review. The referee eventually overturned his initial decision, giving Justin Kluivert the opportunity to score his second penalty.

    Did Lukasz Fabianski foul Gabriel?

    • Match result: West Ham 2-5 Arsenal
    • VAR says: Penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (58.5%)

    Arsenal were ruthless in their win over West Ham, and also received two penalties in the first half. The second came on the stroke of half-time, for a reckless challenge from Lukasz Fabianski on Gabriel. It came from a corner, with Fabianski attempting to punch the ball clear. Although he did get some of the ball, Fabianski also connected with Gabriel’s head. The on-field decision was for a penalty and although the VAR review was lengthy, the initial call was deemed correct.

    Was Tom Cairney rightfully sent off?

    • Match result: Tottenham 1-1 Fulham
    • VAR says: Red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (61.9%)

    Tom Cairney scored Fulham’s equaliser against Tottenham, securing the Cottagers a point. But he also made their task slightly harder in the final 10 minutes, with a red card. The midfielder challenged Dejan Kulusevski from behind, catching the Swede and was booked by the referee. But it was checked by VAR and upgraded to a red card, as Cairney caught Kulusevski higher up his leg with a bit of force. Cairney will miss three games for serious foul play.

    GW12 VAR controversies

    Did Wilfred Ndidi deserve red?

    • Match result: Leicester 1-2 Chelsea
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (69.6%)

    VAR were thrown straight into it when the Premier League returned in the early kick-off at the King Power. There were a lot of decisions to be made, and a lot of talking points after. The first came with a tackle on Cole Palmer from Wilfred Ndidi, coming in from behind and standing on the Englishman’s heel. A yellow card was awarded, and VAR were happy to stick with the referee’s call given it lacked intensity. But former Chelsea player Joe Cole wasn’t happy, saying: “He could hurt him there. If VAR’s ever going to step in for reckless endangerment of a player. It’s a terrible tackle.

    Should Leicester have had another penalty?

    • Match result: Leicester 1-2 Chelsea
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (58.2%)

    Leicester pulled a late goal back from the penalty spot, but Steve Cooper felt aggrieved they didn’t have another spot-kick. Stephy Mavididi went down in the box after contact with Wesley Fofana, but the referee didn’t deem it a foul. It was a decision echoed by VAR, who felt there was not enough to overturn the initial call.

    “We’ve had a lot of bad luck with this referee this year. It’s our third or fourth game with him and it’s not been the best of times. It continued today,” Cooper said after the game.

    “The last thing [referees’ body] PGMOL needed was that performance. He’s got some big decisions massively wrong and in general a couple of advantages he blew up.

    “I don’t know if he lost concentration or composure but it’s not what the referees needed in the first game live on TV [after the international break].

    “It’s a pity. It’s going to be all the talking points. I’m disappointed it’s us on the wrong end of it.”

    Was Christian Norgaard’s sending off fair?

    • Match result: Everton 0-0 Brentford
    • VAR says: Red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (52.6%)

    Everton and Brentford played out a goalless draw at Goodison Park which didn’t really do either side any good. But Brentford may be pleased with their first away point of the season, especially as they played just over 50 minutes of it with 10 men. Christian Norgaard was sent off for a high tackle on Jordan Pickford that was initially missed by the referee. He made an attempt to play the ball, but VAR felt it deserved a red card for serious foul play.

    “I don’t think he meant it, he spoke to me after the game, and he’s been respectful,” Pickford said after the game.

    “He’s not tried to leave one on me. His foot is high, I’m lucky to not get badly hurt.”

    Was Robertson’s foul inside the box?

    • Match result: Southampton 2-3 Liverpool
    • VAR says: Penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (57.3%)

    This was another controversial one. Southampton were awarded a penalty when Tyler Dibling was brought down by Andy Robertson. It was close to the line of the box and, after consulting his assistant, the referee pointed to the spot. VAR looked at it and couldn’t find sufficient evidence that the foul came outside the box. So the on-field decision stood. But Liverpool fans were not happy at all.

    Should Adam Lallana have seen red?

    • Match result: Southampton 2-3 Liverpool
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: Split decision (50%)

    In what was an exciting game, some believed Southampton should have been reduced to 10 men. Midway through the first half, Adam Lallana was trying to make up for a poor touch but caught Ryan Gravenberch on the ankle. The former Liverpool man was booked, but it was checked by VAR. They decided there was no evidence of error, and it was a decision which split opinion.

    A first for our polls this season, with exactly 50% saying no red card was the right decision and the other half saying it should have been a red. We’ll have to go with the on-field decision for this one. How very VAR of us.

    Were Newcastle denied a penalty?

    • Match result: Newcastle 0-2 West Ham
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (52.6%)

    Newcastle had just two shots on target in their defeat to West Ham, but fans felt they should have had a chance from the penalty spot. Callum Wilson went down in the box under challenge from Konstantinos Mavropanos, who had his arms around the Englishman. The referee didn’t give a penalty, and VAR felt the decision was right. This was another close call for our poll, but no penalty looks like it might have been the right decision. Just.

    GW11 VAR controversies

    Did Pau Torres deserve a penalty?

    • Match result: Liverpool 2-0 Aston Villa
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (52.6%)

    The first of two penalty claims from Pau Torres, this feels like it was the stronger one. Aston Villa had a free-kick which was sent into the box by Lucas Digne and cleared by Conor Bradley. But before getting to the ball, Bradley had hold of Torres’ shirt, sending the Spaniard to the ground. It was looked at, but not given. While Bradley did have hold of Torres, it will have been deemed not enough to overturn David Coote’s decision. There is a case that a penalty would have been upheld if that was Coote’s initial decision.

    “There’s a blatant pull, Pau Torres is there at the front post and he (Conor Bradley) drags him out of that area with a shirt pull,” Michael Owen said on Optus Sport‘s coverage of the game.

    “If the ball goes over the back post and floats over everybody, I’d think ‘turn a blind eye to that, it didn’t affect the play’, but that is a blatant pull out of an area for him (Bradley) to clear the ball.

    “VAR has seen it, and I’m astonished that they didn’t give a penalty.”

    Should Liverpool’s second goal have counted?

    • Match result: Liverpool 2-0 Aston Villa
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (63.6%)

    Another penalty claim from Torres, and this is the one that has caught the most traction. Mainly because Virgil van Dijk had a go at him after, reminding the Spaniard that he’s 6’4″, so shouldn’t be going down in the way he did. It also came just before Liverpool scored their second. So if VAR had awarded a penalty, Aston Villa could have gone from potentially being 2-0 down to drawing 1-1.

    “We had chances to score, maybe one potential penalty at the end, which I think with VAR was a penalty, but ok we have to accept the decisions of the referee,” Unai Emery said after the game.

    Replays showed that Torres had gone into Gravenberch, initiating contact that wasn’t going to be there. It was never going to be enough for a penalty, so Liverpool’s goal stood.

    Were Southampton unfairly punished?

    • Match result: Wolves 2-0 Southampton
    • VAR says: No goal
    • Squawka poll says: Goal (60.7%)

    Although we are still early into the season, this could be a crucial decision in the relegation battle. On Saturday, Wolves hosted Southampton in a battle between two relegation rivals. Both were chasing their first league win of the season, and Wolves were the ones to get it. But it could have been 1-1 early on. Shortly after Wolves had taken the lead, Southampton thought they had equalised. But the goal went to VAR, as all goals do, and they recommended a referee review. VAR believed that Mateus Fernandes had fouled Nelson Semedo in the build up, and that it was sufficient enough for the goal to be disallowed.

    There were a lot of arguments about the threshold for a decision being overturned, and this feels like it was the wrong call.

    “The decision is a really tough one. I just heard Gary O’Neil when I walked past him and he said it’s a blatant foul – I just don’t see it that way,” Southampton manager Russell Martin said after the game.

    “It’s subjective. But my point is, if you really understand the game, the ball is the other side of Semedo and he moves his leg the wrong way away from the ball.”

    GW10 VAR controversies

    Should Chelsea have had a penalty?

    • Match result: Man United 1-1 Chelsea
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (62.8%)

    The first of two contentious decisions in Manchester United’s 1-1 draw with Chelsea on Sunday. It came from a Chelsea corner with Noni Madueke hitting the post with a header. From the rebound, Levi Colwill got his foot onto the ball but sent it over the bar. The Chelsea defender went down clutching his foot, with replays showing Lisandro Martinez had caught Colwill. Not much was said on it at the time, but play continued with a goal kick for Man United.

    Speaking during the commentary, Mike Dean commented: “It took a while, to be fair, to get the right replay and that’s why we didn’t comment on it [the Colwill incident] at the time.

    “As Colwill has taken a shot, I just think that it is a natural coming together, it is more Colwill kicking the boot of Martinez’s foot rather than the other way around. So, the check is cleared eventually, but it did take a long time, and I don’t think the VAR could get the right replay.”

    Later, former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher claimed VAR would have overturned any penalty call for a foul in the build up.

    “The referee didn’t think it was a penalty, if VAR looks at it, there’s a foul here [on Casemiro] comes first,” he said.

    “If the referee gives the penalty, then I think they will check the attacking phase and they will say Casemiro was fouled. Default, drop ball to the goalkeeper.”

    Was Martinez lucky to avoid red?

    • Match result: Man United 1-1 Chelsea
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (74.1%)

    Another incident involving Martinez, this time in the dying stages. The Argentine caught Cole Palmer on the knee with his studs and was booked. VAR did check for a potential red card for serious foul play, but agreed with the on-field decision, deeming it was just a reckless challenge.

    Former referee Mike Dean agreed, saying: “He’s come down, he’s just caught the end of his knee with his studs.

    “There’s not a lot of force in it, it’s more of a glancing blow down across his knee rather than endangering the safety of an opponent.”

    It’s the second time Martinez has escaped a red card for a rough tackle, also doing so against Crystal Palace in gameweek five.

    Should Bednarek have seen red?

    • Match result: Southampton 1-0 Everton
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (51.7%)

    Southampton got their first win of the season against Everton, keeping a clean sheet in their 1-0 victory over the Toffees. Jan Bednarek was at the heart of that victory, but Everton fans will feel he shouldn’t have finished the match. With just under 15 minutes left to play, Bednarek brought down Beto who was racing in on goal from out wide.

    “I am very, very surprised by the chance for the sending off,” Sean Dyche said after the game.

    “When you are an ex-defender, you are thinking you are off – as soon as you do that. Beto is clearly in his stride, he is breaking across.”

    VAR did look at the decision but agreed with the referee. The argument would be that Beto was too far wide, with Taylor Harwood-Bellis also covering after Bednarek had been beaten.

    Was a yellow card right for Tarkowski?

    • Match result: Southampton 1-0 Everton
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (65.2%)

    There was another red card incident in the game between Southampton and Everton, this time for a Toffees player. In the first half, James Tarkowski was booked for a strong challenge on Cameron Archer from behind. But former Premier League goalkeeper Shay Given believes he gave referee Andy Madley a decision to make.

    “He’s gone clean through the back of Archer and I’ve seen reds given for less,” Given said on BBC Final Score.

    “You think of how important this game is as well for Everton, away from home at Southampton – he’s given the referee and the VAR an opportunity to send him off and I think it’s a poor tackle.”

    Should Ipswich have had a penalty?

    • Match result: Ipswich 1-1 Leicester
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (56.7%)

    There was more late heartbreak for Ipswich Town as they conceded an injury-time equaliser against Leicester City. It means a longer wait for the Tractor Boys to get their first league win of the season. But there is an argument that Ipswich could have had a penalty to make it 2-0 late on. Abdul Fatawu barged into Conor Chaplin inside the Leicester box, but penalty appeals were immediately waved away.

    It’s not a decision that has gone down well with Ipswich chairman Mark Ashton, who has called it an “injustice”.

    “Right now I’m confused,” Ashton told BBC Suffolk.

    “I think as a coaching staff we’re confused. The culmination of that ‘interesting,’ shall we say, conversation with Howard on Saturday night is that we will meet, this week, at Portman Road to discuss it. Because we need answers. We need to understand. I struggle to understand why we weren’t awarded a penalty.

    “It’s a stonewall penalty. So why isn’t it checked by VAR? I don’t know. I need to have answers for my manager, for my key stakeholders and, more importantly, I need to have answers for the fanbase.

    “And as I said, I will give my last breath fighting for this football club. I didn’t enjoy Saturday. I felt it was an injustice to everyone in this town and this county. And I want some answers.”

    Should Lewis Cook have seen red?

    • Match result: Bournemouth 2-1 Man City
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (71.7%)

    Manchester City lost for the first time in gameweek 10, beaten 2-1 by Bournemouth. But some Man City fans will have felt their hosts should have been reduced to 10 men. In the second half, Lewis Cook slid in on Erling Haaland, catching the Man City striker on the ankle. There were appeals for a red card, but Cook wasn’t even booked.

    Were Crystal Palace denied a rightful winner?

    • Match result: Wolves 2-2 Crystal Palace
    • VAR says: No goal
    • Squawka poll says: No goal (54.4%)

    There was a split second when Crystal Palace thought they had secured their second league win in as many games, as Jean-Philippe Mateta slotted home against Wolves in injury time. But it was almost immediately ruled out on the pitch by the referee, for a foul on goalkeeper Jose Sa in the build up. As Sa looked to have both hands on a loose ball in the box, Crystal Palace’s Daniel Munoz collided with the Wolves goalkeeper. In that move, Sa then lost control of the ball, allowing Mateta to score.

    VAR backed up the referee’s call, confirming that Sa was considered to be in control of the ball which was between his hand and the ground. But this was a decision that split opinion, even among Crystal Palace fans.

    GW9 VAR controversies

    Should Chelsea have had a penalty?

    • Match result: Chelsea 2-1 Newcastle
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (60.4%)

    Chelsea returned to winning ways with a victory over Newcastle, but Blues fans felt they should have had the opportunity to win by more. As the game neared its end, Chelsea were awarded a penalty when Christopher Nkunku was brought down in the box by Dan Burn. But it was a soft call with Nkunku going down after minimal contact, making the most of it. Newcastle fans will have been aggrieved had the penalty stood after VAR’s review. Fortunately for them it was overturned, though the Magpies couldn’t grab a late equaliser.

    Did an error cost Erik ten Hag his job?

    • Match result: West Ham 2-1 Man United
    • VAR says: Penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (72.7%)

    Erik ten Hag was sacked by Manchester United on Monday. The final straw proved to be a 2-1 defeat to West Ham United on Sunday, but it came in controversial fashion. After the Red Devils had equalised, the game looked to be playing out for a draw when Danny Ings went down in the box. Matthijs de Ligt was the man making the challenge, which the referee deemed not to be enough for a penalty. But VAR deemed there was sufficient contact on Ings for an overturn. This caused a lot of controversy, with many believing the threshold of a clear and obvious error hadn’t been met. It will be amplified now that Ten Hag has been sacked, and almost 75% of our X followers believe it was an error.

    Were Ipswich unlucky to concede a penalty?

    • Match result: Brentford 4-3 Ipswich
    • VAR says: Penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (60%)

    What a game this was! Ipswich led Brentford 2-0, trailed 3-2 and then looked to steal a point before the Bees won it at the death. The Tractor Boys were reduced to 10 men when Harry Clarke was sent off for a second yellow card, which didn’t help their cause. Both yellows were for fouls on Keane Lewis-Potter, and the first brought a penalty. But it wasn’t a penalty at first. The contact did start outside the box, which led the referee to award a free-kick. But the VAR review showed that the foul did continue into the box. When it is a case of holding, if the foul continues inside the box, it is a penalty. So, the right decision was made, as harsh as it may seem.

    Did the ball go out before McGinn’s disallowed goal?

    • Match result: Aston Villa 1-1 Bournemouth
    • VAR says: No goal
    • Squawka poll says: No goal (75.4%)

    This had the potential to be a controversial one. We’ve seen close calls in the past few years alone about whether a ball has gone out of play in the build up to a goal. Last season Newcastle had a goal against Arsenal count despite the Gunners thinking the ball had crossed the byline. There wasn’t enough evidence to prove that was the case, so the on-field decision was upheld. Here, the camera angles worked in Bournemouth’s favour. Because the ball was near the goalline, the camera could see daylight to show that it had in fact gone out of play.

    GW8 VAR controversies

    Should Tosin Adarabioyo have been sent off?

    • Match result: Liverpool 2-1 Chelsea
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (51.9%)

    There were a few decisions in Liverpool’s win over Chelsea that brought debate, but this was the most contentious — for reasons which will be clear shortly. In the early stages of the game at Anfield, Diogo Jota was brought down by Tosin Adarabioyo just inside the Chelsea half. With the centre-back being the last man, fans were calling for a red card. But a yellow was given and VAR confirmed the call. Replays showed the floated pass over the top was dropping toward the side of the pitch. Levi Colwill was also close enough to cover, suggesting that a goalscoring opportunity had not been denied.

    Was William Saliba unlucky to see red?

    • Match result: Bournemouth 2-0 Arsenal
    • VAR says: Red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (62.8%)

    The reason Adarabioyo’s challenge was such a talking point was due to this red card. Arsenal went down to 10 men in their 2-0 defeat to Bournemouth. In the first half, Leandro Trossard played a poor ball back towards his own goal, into the path of Evanilson. The Bournemouth striker was chasing the ball but was brought down by William Saliba. The Frenchman was initially booked by the referee, but VAR recommended an on-field review. Replays showed that Benjamin White wasn’t close enough to cover and David Raya had been retreating, so wouldn’t have closed Evanilson down. After the on-field review, the yellow card was upgraded to a red.

    Should Man City’s winner have counted?

    • Match result: Wolves 1-2 Man City
    • VAR says: Goal
    • Squawka poll says: No goal (52.9%)

    Offsides are generally cut and dry. You’re either offside or you’re not, so those calls won’t be a focus in our polls. But this was one of the occasions where an offside call was subjective. Wolves thought they were holding onto a point against Man City before John Stones put the ball in the back of the net deep into injury time. It took a moment, but the goal was disallowed for offside with Bernardo Silva — who didn’t touch the ball — being in an offside position. But VAR deemed that Silva wasn’t interfering with play, not being in the goalkeeper’s line of vision. An on-field review was recommended, and the goal given.

    Was Leicester’s penalty fair?

    • Match result: Southampton 2-3 Leicester
    • VAR says: Penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (67.3%)

    Leicester came from 2-0 down to beat Southampton 3-2 on Saturday, in a game that brought a lot of attention on referee Anthony Taylor. One of the decisions he didn’t initially give was a penalty for Leicester. The Foxes were in the ascendancy and after a rebound in the box, Jamie Vardy tried to tap home from on the goalline. He didn’t get a full connection on the ball and it was cleared. But replays showed that Ryan Fraser had hold of Vardy’s shirt, stopping him from scoring. After VAR review, a penalty was awarded and a red card for Fraser, who had made no attempt to win the ball.

    Should Southampton have had a spot-kick?

    • Match result: Southampton 2-3 Leicester
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (67.2%)

    What made the Leicester call slightly contentious was the fact that Southampton were denied a spot-kick for a similar incident moments earlier. Jordan Ayew had hold of Paul Onuachu’s shirt in the box from a corner, restricting him as he ran to the ball. As the corner went into the goalkeeper’s hands, Onuachu wasn’t near the ball, so was deemed too far away to have been impacted. And VAR agreed with this call. But the fact that Ayew had hold of Onuachu’s shirt for so long was the reason why Onuachu didn’t make it.

    Was Ipswich’s overturn correct?

    • Match result: Ipswich 0-2 Everton
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (65.4%)

    This isn’t the first time Everton have had a penalty call like this in their game. Ipswich were awarded a penalty in the first half after Harry Clarke went down in the box under challenge from Dwight McNeil. But replays showed that Clarke had kciked McNeil’s leg, so no foul was committed. The VAR recommended an on-field review and the penalty was overturned.

    Was Joachim Andersen’s red the right decision?

    • Match result: Fulham 1-3 Aston Villa
    • VAR says: Red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (55.8%)

    When already trailing against Aston Villa, Fulham’s chances of getting back into the game were hurt by a red card shown to Joachim Andersen. Fulham’s defence was split open by a good pass from Morgan Rogers into Ollie Watkins, who was in a foot race with Andersen. The Englishman collided with Andersen, going down just outside the box. It was more of a shoulder-to-shoulder challenge, though Andersen did move his arm a little, and Watkins eventually went down with a tangle of legs. For some, including Marco Silva, this was too harsh.

    “For me, the referees are trying not to go for soft touches,” the Fulham boss said.

    “It happened already for us against West Ham, they explained to us it was soft but two or three weeks later you see a completely different situation and not consistent to what we’ve seen week in or week out in the Premier League.

    “I’m not going to find excuses in the referee as to why we lost the game.

    “We’re all confused, we all don’t understand, even for you, for fans, for staff, managers and players, we’re all confused because when things happen we try to understand why and respect. They explained to us why (vs West Ham) and now completely changed the decision.”

    GW7 VAR controversies

    Should Crystal Palace have had a penalty?

    • Match result: Crystal Palace 0-1 Liverpool
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (63.7%)

    The first game of the weekend brought the first controversy. Liverpool left Selhurst Park with a 1-0 victory to remain top of the league, but Crystal Palace fans felt aggrieved. They wanted a penalty for a foul with just under 20 minutes left.

    Following a corner, Palace put the ball into the box which was flicked towards goal by Trevoh Chalobah. Alisson saved the shot but at the same time, Marc Guehi was being held by Virgil van Dijk as he tried to follow the ball. No penalty was given and the onfield decision was confirmed by VAR. According to the Premier League Match Centre, the holding was not sustained and had no impact on the play – as Guehi was unlikely to get onto the ball anyway.

    Former referee Keith Hackett believes Liverpool were fortunate to escape the penalty, saying: “It was a clear and obvious penalty. The fact that VAR didn’t intervene is frankly pathetic.”

    Our followers on X agreed, believing it was a penalty. And it could have led to a vital point for Crystal Palace.

    Were Leicester denied again?

    • Match result: Leicester 1-0 Bournemouth
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (67.8%)

    Leicester fans must be getting pretty fed up with technology. This time they believe they were denied a penalty for handball midway through the first half of their game against Bournemouth. The Foxes did actually get the win in this one, but goal difference could be crucial come the end of the season.

    With Leicester looking for a second, Stephy Mavididi’s cross hit the outstretched hand of Illia Zabarnyi inside the box. The Foxes appealed for a penalty, but neither referee nor VAR thought it was enough. Given the arm was so far out from the body, it’s easy to see why Leicester fans weren’t happy with the lack of penalty. But it was deemed to be in a natural position per the Premier League’s interpretation of the law, as Zabarnyi was running. The close proximity of the ball from Mavididi also played its part in no penalty being given, with our followers agreeing this was the right call.

    Did Newcastle get a lucky break?

    • Match result: Everton 0-0 Newcastle
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (50.5%)

    There were two penalty decisions in Everton and Newcastle’s goalless draw. One was given, one was not. Newcastle’s spot-kick was awarded for a foul by James Tarkowski on Sandro Tonali. The Everton centre-back dragged Tonali to the floor in the box from a corner. Although the referee missed it, it was never going to be ignored by VAR.

    But midway through the second half, Everton wanted a penalty of their own. As Dominic Calvert-Lewin pulled his leg back to take a shot inside the box, his action was hampered by Dan Burn. The Newcastle defender was behind Calvert-Lewin, who kicked Burn’s leg on the return. That was the crucial point for VAR, with Burn not trying to impede Calvert-Lewin.

    “I think it was probably one of them that if the referee gives it, it probably doesn’t get overturned. I felt Dominic kicked me but I’ve not seen it back,” Burn said after the game.

    This one split opinion with just a 1% difference between it being the wrong decision and the correct one for our followers.

    Were Man United unlucky vs Aston Villa?

    • Match result: Aston Villa 0-0 Man United
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (62.3%)

    Another goalless draw that could have been changed by penalty being given. This one came in Man United’s draw with Aston Villa, with the Red Devils the aggrieved party. Midway through the first half, Harry Maguire headed the ball and it hit Morgan Rogers’ hand inside the box. But the call was waved away and confirmed by VAR.

    This one felt more cut and dry, though there were still complaints. Rogers was challenging Maguire for the ball, and as he jumped his hand was high above his head. But the ball hit his hand from close proximity, which normally rules out the penalty call.

    GW6 VAR controversies

    Should Bruno Fernandes have been sent off?

    • Match result: Man United 0-3 Tottenham
    • VAR says: Red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (67.2%)

    The biggest decision of the weekend by some distance, and perhaps the most-opinion splitting one of the season. Man United were terrible in their 3-0 defeat to Tottenham, but things were made harder by Bruno Fernandes’ red card in the first half. The Portuguese midfielder was stretching in a tackle against James Maddison and caught the Englishman on the shin. The referee issued a red card, believing the tackle to have been high and with the studs leading — serious foul play was the official call. It was checked by VAR and the decision upheld.

    “Never a red card – that is my view,” Fernandes told Match of the Day after the game.

    “I agree that it is a foul. The referee tried to tell me that as he saw it was a clear contact with the studs. No. I didn’t touch him with the studs or even the foot, it was my ankle. It is a clear foul.

    “If he wants to give me a yellow because they are going to go on a counter then I agree. But more than that, no. It is not the case.”

    Well, our followers on X don’t believe the red card was fair and it has since been overturned for a successful claim of wrongful dismissal. The question remains, how did VAR not come to this decision at the time?

    Was Liverpool’s penalty vs Wolves correct?

    • Match result: Wolves 1-2 Liverpool
    • VAR says: Penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (57.3%)

    Liverpool moved top of the table with a win away at Wolves, capitalising on Man City dropping points. Ibrahima Konate had given Liverpool a first-half lead but then made a mistake to let Wolves equalise after the break. Just moments later, Liverpool had a penalty and the chance to go ahead once again. Nelson Semedo was the culprit, bringing Diogo Jota down in the box. It was a clumsy challenge with Semedo holding the former Wolves man, and he couldn’t have any complaints.

    Was VAR right to award Fulham a penalty?

    • Match result: Nottingham Forest 0-1 Fulham
    • VAR says: Penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (61.8%)

    Now we’ve got an actual VAR overturn. When Murillo brought Andreas Pereira down in the box just after half-time, the referee didn’t initially point to the spot. But it was looked at by VAR, who deemed there was a clear foul on the Fulham man, and recommended an on-field review. The penalty was awarded, and scored by Raul Jimenez. But Nuno Espirito Santo wasn’t a happy man.

    “We all want peace and for things to continue well, to not have to speak about the referees,” he said. “But it was bad, wasn’t it?

    “In Fulham’s box, we had the situations with T (Taiwo Awoniyi) and Anthony (Elanga). They checked and looked, but they don’t have the same opinion we do. We just have to hope that for the next one, we are not talking about referees.

    “Let’s try to avoid (talking about officials) and give the referees peace. I think they are trying to improve, but today was not the best day.

    “We don’t want to talk about it (referee decisions). Nobody wants to talk about it. When we come to the game, we don’t think about the ref, we just want to compete and play the game and hope the referee gets things right. But today he didn’t do a good job, so let’s hope he improves – like we have to do also. We didn’t play a good game so we have to improve.”

    Should James Tarkowski have been penalised for challenge on Jean-Philippe Mateta?

    • Match result: Everton 2-1 Crystal Palace
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (65.3%)

    Another mistake in the eyes of our followers as Crystal Palace not being awarded a penalty against Everton. The Eagles were leading 1-0 in the first half when Jean-Philippe Mateta was brought down by James Tarkowski in the Everton box. Neither the referee nor VAR deemed it enough for a penalty, and Everton went on to win the game.

    But former Man City defender Micah Richards believes Tarkowski was lucky.

    “I think he takes him out on both legs, I think Tarkowski knows exactly what he’s doing, he looks at the referee,” he said on Match of the Day.

    “He knows he’s guilty, you see it there – he’s on the line, he gets a little bit of the ball, he gets his leg, he gets both legs if I’m being totally honest about the situation. But, Everton need a little bit of luck, they’ve had no luck over the last couple of weeks.

    “So they got away with one there but I do believe it is a penalty.”

    Did William Saliba fouled Jamie Vardy before Arsenal’s opener?

    • Match result: Arsenal 4-2 Leicester
    • VAR says: No foul
    • Squawka poll says: No foul (56.7%)

    Arsenal’s game against Leicester was a fun one, with the Gunners going 2-0 up and being pegged back to 2-2, before eventually taking the match 4-2. But there was a lot of conversation around Arsenal’s opening goal. Gabriel Martinelli was the scorer, capping off a quick team move which started from the Gunners’ own half. But at the start of the move was a tackle on Jamie Vardy by William Saliba, which some felt bordered on a foul. The referee and VAR felt the tackle wasn’t enough to pull the goal back for a foul, particularly given the time that had past.

    Steve Cooper wasn’t happy, though, saying: “It’s a clear foul on Jamie Vardy for the first [Arsenal] goal and the left-back has to get sent off for a second yellow.

    “There’s so much more we could say. The whole game knows, but I’m not going down that road today. We were very disappointed with a foul not being given on Vards for the first goal.”

    GW5 VAR controversies

    Should Lisandro Martinez have been sent off?

    • Match result: Crystal Palace 0-0 Man United
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (79.6%)

    One of five draws at the weekend, Crystal Palace and Man United were both unable to breach the opponents’ net. But there is a chance that the game could have shifted, if one decision was given. In the second half, Lisandro Martinez jumped two-footed into a challenge on Daichi Kamada. It was akin to a double-footed stamp, though aiming for the ball and not the man.

    Although Martinez didn’t actually make any connection with Kamada, he was penalised and booked for the nature of his challenge. But many fans were bemused at the decision, given how dangerous the challenge was regardless of whether he made contact or not. And this was the biggest error of the weekend for our followers, with almost 80% saying a red card should have been given.

    Should West Ham have had a penalty?

    • Match result: West Ham 0-3 Chelsea
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (69%)

    Another 3-0 win, this time for Chelsea away at West Ham. But it could have been 3-1. With Chelsea 2-0 up in the first half, West Ham were on a break with Crysencio Summerville making his way into the box. He went down in the box under challenge from Wesley Fofana, who was holding his arm. The referee Sam Barrott wasn’t moved by the penalty claims, and he was backed up by VAR. This may have been one of those not meeting the ‘clear and obvious error’ threshold, and if it was given on the pitch it probably wouldn’t have been overturned. But as it wasn’t given, our followers did deem it a VAR error.

    Arsenal hit by ‘delaying the restart’ again

    Now, VAR wouldn’t have been able to check this particular moment, but we still put it to our X followers. For the second time in three games, Arsenal had a player receive a second yellow card for delaying the restart. This time it was Leandro Trossard in the first half of Arsenal’s eventual 2-2 draw with Manchester City at the Etihad.

    Trossard had been penalised for a foul on Bernardo Silva and booted the ball away, as you might have expected him to do in the circumstance anyway. But Michael Oliver had blown the whistle and Trossard was deemed to have delayed the restart, earning him a second yellow card. As it was a second yellow, there was no VAR involvement per protocol, but it was a decision that split opinion. Of those who took part in our poll on X, 54.2% believe Trossard should not have received a second yellow card.

    Fans on social media once again pointed out inconsistencies, as Jeremy Doku wasn’t penalised for appearing to delay a restart in the first half. But there were as many arguments defending that, claiming Doku was knocking the ball back to where the free-kick should have been taken.

    GW4 VAR controversies

    Was Jurrien Timber lucky to avoid red?

    • Match result: Tottenham 0-1 Arsenal
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (68.4%)

    Another Arsenal game, another VAR discussion. There were two red cards to be considered in the North London derby at the weekend. The first was for Jurrien Timber. Just after the half-hour mark Jurrien Timber was booked for challenge on Pedro Porro. The Dutchman got the ball but then made contact with Porro’s leg. Tottenham players weren’t happy with the tackle, sparking a mini brawl.

    Given the lack of force in Timber’s tackle, and the direction of his foot, going down, a red could have been harsh. And that was largely accepted by fans in our poll.

    Should Tottenham have been reduced to 10 men vs Arsenal?

    • Match result: Tottenham 0-1 Arsenal
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (72.3%)

    There was another check for a red card just before half-time, this time for Micky van de Ven. The Tottenham defender went in hard on a challenge on Leandro Trossard in trying to stop an Arsenal attack. There was a quick check but the tackle was deemed reckless rather than serious foul play.

    Should Jean-Philippe Mateta’s first goal vs Leicester have counted?

    • Match result: Crystal Palace 2-2 Leicester
    • VAR says: Goal
    • Squawka poll says: Goal (73.6%)

    This weekend we did see a VAR overturn! It came in Crystal Palace’s game against Leicester in which they came from 2-0 down to secure a 2-2 draw thanks to a brace from Jean-Philippe Mateta. But there have been some discussions surrounding Mateta’s first goal. It came just moments after Leicester had gone 2-0 up but was initially ruled out for offside by the assistant referee. However, VAR got the lines out and the goal was eventually given.

    But depending on what angle was shown, some people — particularly Leicester fans — found it inconclusive. Leicester manager Steve Cooper said: “I really want to see the absolute offside image of the first goal. If it is, no problem, we’ll hold our hands up, but we can’t be calling offsides on suggestions, which is only what we’ve seen at the moment.

    “We need to get that image quickly off the Premier League. If it is, I’ll accept it.”

    Was Robert Sanchez right to avoid double jeopardy?

    • Match result: Bournemouth 0-1 Chelsea
    • VAR says: Penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (75.6%)

    Chelsea stole a 1-0 victory against Bournemouth on Saturday, having largely struggled at the Vitality. They could have been 1-0 down in the first half too, with Evanilson missing a penalty. Evanilson won the penalty himself after being fouled by Robert Sanchez, and there was no question about the spot-kick. However, there were some complaints from Bournemouth’s players that Sanchez was only booked.

    The Spaniard’s foul did essentially fall under the double jeopardy protection. Although he cleaned Evanilson out, Sanchez made a genuine attempt to win the ball, while also making himself big to try and stop the shot.

    Was Jack Stephens right to be sent off vs Man Utd?

    • Match result: Southampton 0-3 Man Utd
    • VAR says: Red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (66.8%)

    Southampton had the chance to go ahead against Man Utd in the first half but missed a penalty — which there were no complaints about. Saints would have deserved the lead too, given how they started. But they eventually fell apart and Man Utd were worth their 3-0 lead. Before the scoreline was completed, Southampton were reduced to 10 men after Jack Stephens saw red for a high challenge on Alejandro Garnacho.

    At first viewing, the red card did look harsh, but replays soon proved it was the right decision. The tackle was high and deemed serious foul play by VAR, who confirmed the on-field decision. There weren’t many complaints.

    GW3 VAR controversies

    Should Arsenal have had a penalty vs Brighton?

    • Match result: Arsenal 1-1 Brighton
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (59.5%)

    This was the biggest game for controversy at the weekend, and the first VAR check was for a penalty potential to Arsenal. It came in the first half as Ben White’s shot hit the arm of Lewis Dunk before going out for a corner. By the law, this one was pretty cut and dry.

    Dunk’s arm was close to his body and he made no movement towards the ball. This was never going to be a penalty in the Premier League, though fan opinion was split a lot closer.

    Declan Rice vs Joel Veltman

    Now this is more of a bonus section, but it’s one worth covering. In the 49th minute, Arsenal were reduced to 10 men as Declan Rice was sent off for his second yellow card. The reasoning didn’t go down well with Arsenal fans, particularly given what took place at the same time — and earlier in the match.

    Rice committed a foul and then nudged the ball away. At the same time, Joel Veltman kicked Rice in a perceived attempt to take a quick free-kick. As Rice was deemed to have delayed the restart, a second yellow card was right by the letter of the law. Of course, as a yellow card, this decision wasn’t to be reviewed by VAR.

    “Disappointed. Didn’t feel it deserved a second yellow card but will learn and be better for it. Proud of the boys regardless & thank you for the amazing support Gunners,” Rice wrote on his Instagram.

    But Arsenal fans felt hard-done-by. Not only was it a slight nudge away, but fans pointed to Joao Pedro escaping a yellow for booting the ball after it had gone out for a throw-in. However, the difference there is in the law. Pedro didn’t technically delay a restart as no Arsenal player was ready to take the throw-in. While Veltman was ready to restart play, though the ball might not have stopped moving.

    Veltman’s kick was checked for a potential red card for serious foul play, but it was quickly brushed away.

    Should Pape Matar Sarr have been sent off?

    • Match result: Newcastle 2-1 Tottenham
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (55.4%)

    There were two potential red card checks in Newcastle’s 2-1 win over Tottenham on Sunday. The first was for Pape Matar Sarr. The midfielder was the first Tottenham player in the book at St James’ Park, for a foul on Lloyd Kelly.

    It was a late challenge but one that was deemed reckless rather than serious foul play. And Sarr was taken off by Ange Postecolgou at half-time, with the Tottenham boss admitting the yellow card played its part.

    “Only because Pape had been booked and like his part of the game, he just really gets stuck into the opposition, and on the flip side, Lloyd Kelly had been booked as well. So I just thought, with Brennan (Johnson) coming on and running at them, I just felt we run over the top of them in the second half,” Postecoglou told reporters when explaining his decision.

    Was James Maddison lucky to avoid red?

    • Match result: Newcastle 2-1 Tottenham
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (53.4%)

    James Maddison was in a tense battle against Bruno Guimaraes at St James’ Park and midway through the second half he went in hard on the Brazilian. Referee Robert Jones gave Maddison a yellow card but it was reviewed for a red. However, VAR deemed that while the challenge was reckless it wasn’t serious foul play and the yellow was upheld.

    GW2 VAR controversies

    Should Bournemouth have secured late win vs Newcastle?

    • Match result: Bournemouth 1-1 Newcastle
    • VAR says: No goal
    • Squawka poll says: Goal (80.5%)

    Bournemouth thought they had won their game against Newcastle late on about Dango Ouattara had put the ball in the back of the net. The on-field decision was a goal, but it was overturned by VAR as they deemed it to be a factual handball by Ouattara. Therefore, an on-field review was not required, and the goal was disallowed.

    However, there was a lot of debate about where on the arm it hit and whether it was clear enough to go against the referee’s initial call.

    Discussing the disallowed goal, Newcastle head coach Eddie Howe said: “A welcome surprise because we weren’t appealing, so I’d be interested to see the replays. We had a VAR decision go against us; this one goes for us.”

    Bournemouth manager Andoni Iraola was less than impressed, telling BBC Sport: “It was so obvious. I think everyone who watches the game would agree. I think the shoulder, it never touches his skin. We have very short sleeves. They say it is factual, show me the facts. I have just seen the video and the fact is it doesn’t touch the arm, it is the shoulder, a clear goal and three points for us.

    “It is something that is not even controversial. It is definitely not something for VAR to intervene. I have nothing against the referee, he gave the goal, they did not give him the chance to see it again. Someone in the VAR, who supposedly is not going to intervene too much they say because they trust the referee.

    “It doesn’t matter I complain now, it is two points less.”

    Should Joelinton have been sent off against Bournemouth?

    • Match result: Bournemouth 1-1 Newcastle
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (84.6%)

    The drama in Bournemouth vs Newcastle wouldn’t end there. Minutes later, Joelinton pulled Neto down to prevent a counter-attack. A cynical challenge on its own, Joelinton was booked for the infringement. However, the Brazilian pulled Neto down by his neck in a tackle that some believe would have been out of place in rugby. But, no change was made to the initial decision and Joelinton stayed on the pitch.

    Should Wolves have been reduced to 10 men?

    • Match result: Wolves 2-6 Chelsea
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (57.6%)

    Midway through the second half of Chelsea’s 6-2 win over Wolves, Yerson Mosquera was booked for a challenge on Moises Caicedo. The tackle was over the ball but as Mosquera connected with the top of Caicedo’s foot, a yellow was deemed worthy by the referee. VAR agreed.

    Was Leif Davis’ challenge on Savinho worth a penalty?

    • Match result: Man City 4-1 Ipswich
    • VAR says: Penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (51.1%)

    Man City drew level with Ipswich with Erling Haaland scoring from the penalty spot. Savinho was brought down in the box by Leif Davis, who talked from behind. However, the referee did not initially award the penalty. The VAR recommended an on-field review and deemed there was a clear foul. The referee overturned his original decision and a penalty was awarded.

    Should Savinho have been penalised for challenge on Leif Davis?

    • Match result: Man City 4-1 Ipswich
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (80.2%)

    Later in the first half, the roles were reversed. Savinho brought down Davis inside Man City’s area, with referee Sam Allison once again ignoring pleas for a penalty. But, this time, his decision was echoed by VAR, who did not suggest an overturn. This was a decision that didn’t go down well with Ipswich fans, given they had conceded a penalty for a similar thing 30 minutes earlier.

    “In my eyes we had a clear penalty,” Ipswich boss Kieran McKenna told reporters. “We could have gone in at 3-2. That’s a really hard one to understand why it wasn’t given, especially with the intervention on the first goal.

    “I promised myself I wouldn’t speak too often about VAR coming into this league, but I don’t understand why the fourth official gave a signal that it had been turned down for a VAR check.

    “The only difference, you could say, is that for the first one the play has stopped, while the situation after our penalty appeal saw City keep the ball for a minute and it’s easier then to forget about it.

    “When I saw it live I thought it was nailed on and I’ve seen one replay where I thought Leif had one arm being pulled and another defender swipe across his legs. From the angle I’ve seen it’s hard to see how it’s not given.”

    GW1 VAR controversies

    Omitted from gameweek one’s selection is Crystal Palace midfielder Eberechi Eze’s brilliant goal during his side’s loss to Brentford. Although the whistle was blown before the ball crossed the goal line, the VAR could not intervene to check Will Hughes’ challenge with Nathan Collins to potentially overturn the on-field decision.

    “I was told [by the referee] that he blew too early and made the mistake,” Eze told BBC Match of the Day. “It could have changed the game but we have to deal with it.”

    Palace head coach Oliver Glasner said by admitting “he made a mistake” referee Sam Barrott “showed he is a great man”.

    Did Chelsea deserve a penalty for Kovacic’s handball?

    Chelsea were not awarded a penalty despite the ball touching Mateo Kovačić’s hand. This decision is based on the referee and VAR’s interpretation of the latest handball law implemented by the Premier League. The incident happened when Kovačić and Malo Gusto went for a 50-50 challenge inside the City box in the 77th minute. The Chelsea defender was first to reach the ball and as he attempted to kick it, it ricocheted up onto Kovačić’s arm before going out of play. Referee Anthony Taylor initially called it a corner, but VAR was later called to check the incident. After a thorough check, the VAR officials backed Taylor’s decision, and Chelsea’s corner stood.

    Per the new handball rule, not every touch of a player’s arm or hand will necessarily be considered an offence. Defenders can also play without having to keep their arms behind their backs. If a player’s arm is in a justifiable position, referees will not call a penalty should the ball hit them via a deflection, if they are falling, or if they are close to the ball. The new rule was implemented after several Premier League clubs raised concerns about the excessive number of handballs being called by officials in matches and argued that the existing rule was too strict last season.

    “No penalty. I’m all for the new interpretation – it’s so close and his arms are going towards his body,” was former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher’s assessment. “It does hit him, there’s no doubt, but this year we’re going to see a lot less penalties given. When we did the briefing last week – which I was on – it was explained that, under the new guidance, it’s no penalty. I’m more comfortable with that interpretation.”

    Was Cash’s challenge on Soucek really a penalty?

    West Ham were awarded a penalty in the 35th minute when Matty Cash brought down Tomás Soucek. Although Cash got a toe to the ball, the referee pointed to the spot and after a VAR check the penalty stood. Lucas Paquetá then scored from the spot to equalise for West Ham.

    Penalty decisions made on the field that wouldn’t be given through VAR are always controversial and often considered soft by fans. Many felt this was an example of a “higher bar” being set, as Cash did make contact with the ball.

    The VAR felt that despite Cash’s touch on the ball, it wasn’t enough to overturn the on-field decision, as he still had to reach around Soucek before bringing him down. Howard Webb, the head of PGMOL, cited similar penalties from the previous season where the VAR didn’t intervene and insisted that, while open to debate, they shouldn’t be considered clear and obvious errors. This decision falls into the same category – not a higher standard, just insufficient reason to overturn the on-field decision.

    “Cash touched the ball, there’s no doubt about that. Does touching the ball negate a foul? No,” Gallagher said. “I do know a lot of people think this isn’t a foul. That’s why you have to stick with the referee’s call because it’s so tight.”

    Were Everton hard done by with penalty overturn?

    • Match result: Everton 0-3 Brighton
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (63.9%)

    Referee Simon Hooper pointed to the penalty spot in the 47th minute when Lewis Dunk made contact with Dominic Calvert-Lewin while sliding. However, the VAR, Darren England, sent Hooper to the monitor to review the incident, and it was subsequently overturned.

    Toffees head coach Sean Dyche was unhappy after the game. He referred to there being a “very high bar” this season. Much of the coverage has talked about a “higher bar,” yet that isn’t the case. Perhaps the message got mixed up in the move to use “referee’s call” over “clear and obvious,” and the drive to make VAR quicker and more efficient. Both are part of the six-point plan to improve VAR.

    Could Schär have stayed on?

    • Match result: Newcastle 1-0 Southampton
    • VAR says: Red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (82.5%)

    Fabián Schär was shown a red card by referee Craig Pawson in the 28th minute after a clash with Ben Brereton Díaz. As the two players faced off, the Newcastle United defender was judged to have moved his head into Brereton Díaz’s and was dismissed for violent conduct. Once the VAR, Chris Kavanagh, identified that Schär directed his head into the opponent’s, there was no likelihood of VAR intervention.

    Brereton Díaz’s actions can be questioned, as the Southampton player theatrically threw himself to the ground. He was booked for his part in the tussle but would not receive another caution for simulation after the opponent had been sent off.

    Did Savinho get away with it on debut?

    • Match result: Chelsea 0-2 Man City
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (53.8%)

    In the 33rd minute, Manchester City winger Savinho, making his Premier League debut for the champions after joining this summer, collided with Chelsea skipper Enzo Fernández, who went down in the City box, but referee Anthony Taylor wasn’t interested. VAR had a quick look but declined to intervene, confirming the referee’s on-field decision.

    Read more:

    Previous Article

    Borussia Dortmund vs Barcelona predicted lineups and team news

    Next Article
    BetMGM Golden Goals: How you can win up to £2million by predicting six Premier League scorelines

    BetMGM Golden Goals: How you can win up to £2million...

    Related Articles

    Show More