How the 2024-25 Premier League table would look without VAR ‘errors’ after GW28

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 28 rounds of the 2024-25 fixtures.

Gameweeks 28 brought was a relatively quiet week for overly controversial moments, considering what had happened previously. But there were still some talking points. We presented the biggest talking ones to our followers on X (formerly Twitter) to gather 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?

GW24 VAR controversies

Was Liverpool’s penalty correct?

• Match result: Bournemouth 0-2 Liverpool
• VAR says: Penalty
• Squawka poll says: Penalty (52.1%)

Bournemouth 0-2 Liverpool – 27’

Cody Gakpo went down in the box under a challenge from Lewis Cook, with the referee awarding a penalty. Replays showed that there was slight contact from Cook on Gakpo, forcing the Dutchman to trip himself up. The penalty was upheld.

— Squawka (@Squawka) February 4, 2025

Liverpool took the lead in their game against Bournemouth from the penalty spot, thanks to Mo Salah. Cody Gakpo was the one brought down in the box midway through the first half by Lewis Cook. At first viewing it looked innocuous, with Gakpo appearing to trip himself up. But replays showed there was slight contact from Cook, causing Gakpo to trip. This was enough to uphold the referee’s decision, though it didn’t go down well with opposition fans.

Should Everton have had a penalty?

• Match result: Everton 4-0 Leicester
• VAR says: No penalty
• Squawka poll says: Penalty (60.3%)

Everton 4-0 Leicester – 34’

Beto was about to receive a pass in the box when he went down under a pretty strong challenge from Jannik Vestergaard. The referee didn’t give a penalty, and his decision was backed up by VAR.

— Squawka (@Squawka) February 4, 2025

Everton may have beat Leicester 4-0 at the weekend, but fans wanted a chance for a fifth. In the first half, Beto went down in the box under challenge from Jannik Vestergaard. The referee didn’t award anything, with some believing it was a shoulder-to-shoulder challenge. But replays showed that Vestergaard did catch Beto a little later, causing the forward to tumble. The threshold may have been a little low for VAR to determine it a clear and obvious error.

Were Aston Villa unfairly punished?

• Match result: Bournemouth 0-2 Liverpool
• VAR says: No goal
• Squawka poll says: Goal (62.1%)

Wolves 2-0 Aston Villa – 54’

Donyell Malen had a goal ruled out for offside, due to interference from Morgan Rogers. Rogers did not touch the ball but was deemed to be impacting Nelson Semedo. A subjective offside, the on-pitch decision was confirmed by VAR.

— Squawka (@Squawka) February 4, 2025

Wolves picked up a big win over Aston Villa at the weekend, but the Villans felt they should have picked up a point. Donyell Malen thought he had equalised for Villa in the second half, finishing following a free-kick routine. But the goal was ruled out on the pitch for offside on Morgan Rogers. Although Rogers did not touch the ball, he was deemed to have impacted Nelson Semedo’s ability to play the ball. After a long check this was confirmed by VAR. And was offside was the on-field decision, the referee did not have to go to the monitor to check the subjective call.

---

GW23 VAR controversies

Was VAR right to award Newcastle a penalty?

• Match result: Southampton 1-3 Newcastle
• VAR says: Penalty
• Squawka poll says: Penalty (61.1%)

Southampton 1-3 Newcastle – 22’

The referee initially decided against awarding a penalty to Newcastle for a challenge by Joe Aribo on Alexander Isak. But a VAR review deemed there was sufficient contact for a penalty, and the referee overturned his original decision.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 27, 2025

Newcastle had to come from behind to beat Southampton, with the comeback started by an Alexander Isak penalty. Isak was the man to win the spot-kick, felled by Joe Aribo. But it wasn’t initially given by the referee. Of course, it went to VAR who deemed there was sufficient contact for a penalty. The refree overturned his original decision, Isak scored, and Newcastle were level.

Was Everton’s penalty a correct overturn?

• Match result: Brighton 0-1 Everton
• VAR says: Penalty
• Squawka poll says: Penalty (72.8%)

Brighton 0-1 Everton – 38’

VAR reviewed a potential penalty for handball by Joel Veltman and determined it was a deliberate action. This prompted an on-field review, and the referee subsequently awarded a penalty to Everton.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 27, 2025

Another overturned penalty decision came in Everton’s win over Brighton. As the game ticked towards half-time, the ball struck Joel Veltman’s arm as he battled with Beto for the ball. Nothing was given on the pitch, with going down under pressure from Beto. There was every chance the handball could have been as a result of the pressure, and accidental. But VAR reviewed the decision and the referee felt it was a deliberate handball by Veltman, awarding Everton a penalty.

Was Myles Lewis-Skelly’s tackle worthy of a red?

• Match result: Wolves 0-1 Arsenal
• VAR says: Red card
• Squawka poll says: No red card (73.3%)

Wolves 0-1 Arsenal – 43’

The referee issued a red card to Myles Lewis-Skelly for a foul on the edge of the Wolves box. This decision was checked and confirmed by VAR, who deemed the challenge as serious foul play.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 27, 2025

Right. The worst decision of all time, according to some. It wasn’t but it was still pretty bad. Wolves looked to counter from an Arsenal corner, and Myles Lewis-Skelly tripped Matt Doherty on the edge on the Wolves box. A cynical challenge, he knew what he was doing, taking the most obvious yellow of all time. And it was worth it to halt a potentially dangerous attack. But the referee instead showed a straight red card, feeling the tackle was serious foul play. This was backed up by VAR, who will have felt the referee’s description of the events matched what they saw — contact above the ankle. But the position and type of contact differed from which still image you saw. The general consensus from fans — or at least those not intent on winding Arsenal supporters up — was that this didn’t deserve a red card.

Mikel Arteta didn’t want to get himself in trouble post-match with comments, but did still say: “It is that clear and I will leave it to you guys.

“I am absolutely fuming. But I will leave it with you, it is that obvious that I don’t think my words are going to help.”

Should Bryan Mbeumo have had second chance?

• Match result: Crystal Palace 1-2 Brentford
• VAR says: Retake
• Squawka poll says: Retake (76.1%)

Crystal Palace 1-2 Brentford – 64’

After Bryan Mbuemo’s penalty, VAR determined that Marc Guehi had encroached into the penalty area and affected an opponent. As a result, VAR recommended that the penalty be retaken.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 27, 2025

Bryan Mbeumo has a 100% record for penalties in the Premier League, scoring all nine of the spot-kicks he has taken. Technically. Number nine came against Crystal Palace, but he actually missed his first attempt. The shot hit the post and was cleared by Marc Guehi, but that’s where the problem came in. Guehi had been inside the D when the penalty was taken, and that counts as encroachment. And while Mbeumo wouldn’t have been able to touch the rebound — as it hit the post — there is an argument that another Brentford player was impeded. So, VAR pointed out the approachment and the penalty was retaken.

Should Lucas Digne have been sent off?

• Match result: Aston Villa 1-1 West Ham
• VAR says: No red card
• Squawka poll says: No red card (54.1%)

Aston Villa 1-1 West Ham – 45+5’

The referee’s decision not to issue a red card to Lucas Digne was reviewed by VAR, which confirmed that his action did not constitute violent conduct.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 27, 2025

In the closing stages of the first half of the game between Aston Villa and West Ham, the Hammers had a free-kick in a dangerous position. Before the kick was taken, though, Lucas Paqueta went down. He calimed he had been elbowed by Aston Villa’s Lucas Digne. VAR checked the incident and felt it wasn’t enough to constitute violent conduct, so play went on.

---

GW22 VAR controversies

Were Nottingham Forest unlucky?

• Match result: Nottingham Forest 3-2 Southampton
• VAR says: No goal
• Squawka poll says: No goal (55.0%)

Nottingham Forest 3-2 Southampton – 64’

Forest thought they had gone 4-1 up through Nikola Milenkovic after a free-kick. The goal was initially given on-field. After a review, VAR deemed Chris Wood had come from an offside position to interfere in play & the goal was ruled out.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 21, 2025

Nottingham Forest were left hanging on to their win over Southampton, but some fans felt it should have been more comfortable. Midway through the second half, Nikola Milenkovic finished following a free-kick, which would have put Forest 4-1 up and made victory certain. There was nothing wrong with the goal as far as the on-pitch referee was initially concerned. But it was checked by VAR for offside, focusing on Chris Wood. This was one of those subjective offside calls, with a decision needed to be made on whether Wood — who had started in an offside position — had interfered in play. VAR felt he had impeded the Southampton defenders, sending the referee to the pitch-side screen to make the final call. And he agreed.

Should Carlos Baleba have faced double punishment?

• Match result: Man United 2-3 Brighton
• VAR says: No red card
• Squawka poll says: No red card (58.7%)

Man United 2-3 Brighton – 20’

Man United were awarded a penalty against Brighton after Carlos Baleba brought down Joshua Zirkzee. He was booked, but the foul was checked for a red card as Baleba hadn’t made a genuine attempt to play the ball. But a yellow was deemed sufficient.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 21, 2025

This was an interesting one. Man United equalised from the penalty spot after Carlos Baleba had brought down Joshua Zirkzee inside the box. The Brighton man was booked, but it was checked for a red card. While penalties are protected by the double jeopardy rule, that is only when a genuine attempt to play the ball has been made. This was not one of those cases, so a red card was a possibility. But after the check, VAR deemed Baleba’s challenge — putting his arm around Zirkzee’s neck — had not denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

---

GW21 VAR controversies

Was Mohamed Salah fouled in the box?

• Match result: Nottingham Forest 1-1 Liverpool
• VAR says: No penalty
• Squawka poll says: No penalty (55.1%)

Nottingham Forest 1-1 Liverpool – 81’

With Liverpool chasing victory, Mohamed Salah went down in the box under a challenge from Elliot Anderson and Neco Williams, with neither getting the ball. The referee and VAR deemed it a fair challenge, leaving Liverpool fans unhappy.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 21, 2025

Nottingham Forest and Liverpool played out an interesting 1-1 draw for the title race, with Arne Slot’s Reds having to come from behind to secure the point. But their fans felt they should have had the opportunity for three. In the final 10 minutes, Mohamed Salah went down in the box under a challenge from a combination of Elliot Anderson and Neco Williams. Neither player got the ball, but it was more of a case of Anderson using his strength to ease Salah out of possession. The decision was checked by VAR, and they deemed it a fair challenge.

Should Bournemouth have been reduced to 10 men?

• Match result: Chelsea 2-2 Bournemouth
• VAR says: No red card
• Squawka poll says: Red card (58.7%)

Chelsea 2-2 Bournemouth – 53’

David Brooks caught Marc Cucurella in the face, with the incident being checked by VAR. They recommended an on-field review for a red card, but this was rejected by the referee, who deemed a yellow card to be enough.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 21, 2025

This was a fairly rare occurrence. In the second half of Chelsea’s 2-2 draw with Bournemouth, Marc Cucurella went down after being caught in the face by David Brooks off the ball. There was a question of whether Brooks had also pulled Cucurella’s hair, as Jack Stephens had in late 2024. VAR looked at the incident and recommended a red card for violent conduct, sending the referee to the screen for a review. But, referee Rob Jones had a second look at the incident and rejected the red card review. Instead, he brandished a yellow card for Brooks for a reckless challenge, which was in his remit once at the screen — though VAR could not recommend a booking.

Enzo Maresca wasn’t happy, telling reporters: “I said many times, for me, if there is no intention to take the ball, it’s a red. They have to explain [it]. If they give a yellow, that means something happened.

“So, how can they judge that it was not dangerous? You cannot judge that it was not dangerous.

“The intention was just to go against Marc Cucurella. In my opinion, it’s a red. Hopefully, we can be more lucky with the referee in the future.”

Were Man United denied a penalty?

• Match result: Man United 3-1 Southampton
• VAR says: No penalty
• Squawka poll says: No penalty (51.0%)

Man United 3-1 Southampton – 25’

Man United appealed for a penalty for a handball by Kyle Walker-Peters, with the ball striking his arm in the box. Nothing was given on the pitch, and VAR confirmed the decision, deeming it accidental as a consequence of contact from Amad.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 21, 2025

Man United needed a late comeback to avoid defeat against Southampton, going behind to an own goal from Manuel Ugarte just before half-time. But the Red Devils will feel they should have had the chance to be ahead before that. Midway through the first half, the ball struck Kyle Walker-Peters’ arm in the box. Although Walker-Peters’ arm was slightly away from his body, nothing was given as it was accidental and came as a result of Amad Diallo’s contact of the ball. This decision was backed up by VAR, who were happy to go with the referee’s call.

---

GW20 VAR controversies

Should Newcastle’s equaliser have counted?

• Match result: Tottenham 1-2 Newcastle
• VAR says: Goal
• Squawka poll says: Goal (79.7%)

Tottenham 1-2 Newcastle – 7’

Anthony Gordon equalised for Newcastle against Tottenham early on. But Newcastle had won possession after Lucas Bergvall’s pass hit Joelinton’s hand. The goal was checked and awarded, as Joelinton’s arm was by his side and the handball accidental.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 7, 2025

Newcastle’s win over Tottenham was a lively one, with both sides scoring incredibly early. Newcastle’s equaliser, though, was contentious to say the least. Newcastle won the ball high up the pitch after Lucas Bergvall’s attempted pass hit Joelinton’s hand. As Joelinton wasn’t the goalscorer, the goal wasn’t immediately ruled out for handball. And as Joelinton had his hand by his side, the referee awarded the goal. Tottenham fans and players were incensed, as were many others, despite it technically being the right decision by the letter of the law.

“Whether people agree with me or not whether it wasn’t handball or it was accidental, I’m just not interested in any of that discussion. What I’m saying is, on any given day with a fair and even playing field and logical thought processes, we would have won that game,” Ange Postecoglou told reporters.

Were Tottenham lucky to not concede a penalty?

• Match result: Tottenham 1-2 Newcastle
• VAR says: No penalty
• Squawka poll says: Penalty (75.2%)

Tottenham 1-2 Newcastle – 59’

Anthony Gordon went down in the box after Dejan Kulusevski’s shoulder connected with his face. The Newcastle winger ended with a bloody nose, but no penalty was given and VAR agreed with the on-pitch decision.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 7, 2025

As well as a goal, Anthony Gordon ended Newcastle’s win over Tottenham with a bloodied nose. Just before the hour-mark, Gordon went down in the box after colliding with Dejan Kulusevski’s shoulder. No penalty was given and VAR agreed with the on-pitch decision. As it was more of a coming together, it felt fair at the time. But other incidents on the weekend — more on that later — have made this more contentious than it initially was.

Should Chelsea have had a penalty?

• Match result: Crystal Palace 1-1 Chelsea
• VAR says: No penalty
• Squawka poll says: No penalty (60.7%)

Crystal Palace 1-1 Chelsea – 62’

Pedro Neto went down in the box midway through the second half for Chelsea against Crystal Palace after a tackle by Tyrick Mitchell. The referee did not award a penalty and it was confirmed by VAR, with no clear evidence of a foul.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 7, 2025

Chelsea fans were angered with a penalty decision for the second game running. This time, they felt they should have had a spot-kick. Pedro Neto went down in the box midway through the second half, under challenge from Tyrick Mitchell. The referee did not point to the spot, and that decision was backed up by VAR. When it came to replays, certain angles were in Crystal Palace’s favour while others favoured Chelsea. As they were inconclusive, it made sense to stick with the on-field decision.

Were Brighton right to get a penalty?

• Match result: Brighton 1-1 Arsenal
• VAR says: Penalty
• Squawka poll says: No penalty (54.7%)

Brighton 1-1 Arsenal – 58’

Brighton were awarded a penalty for a foul by William Saliba on Joao Pedro when contesting a header in the box. Anthony Taylor pointed to the spot, and his decision was confirmed by VAR, who deemed the contact sufficient.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 7, 2025

The controversy of the week. Arsenal once again dropped points against Brighton with a call they felt went against them. This time, it was a penalty awarded for a foul by William Saliba on Joao Pedro. The Brazilian had got his head onto the ball in the box, looking to control it. Saliba then tried to win the ball with his head, accidentally headbutting Pedro. It was a glancing blow, but enough to take Pedro down. After a moment of consideration, Anthony Taylor pointed to the spot and the decision was backed up by VAR. But a lot of fans felt it was an aerial duel bringing a clash of heads, something we don’t see penalties given for.

Mikel Arteta told BBC Sport: “We are really disappointed with the decision that leads to the goal because I have never seen something like this in my life.

“He touches the ball as well. [It is] bizarre. That means we have probably never seen it before. I haven’t in my career. I asked the boys if they have, and no-one has seen this before. So it is a new one. I checked and, after three seconds, they said they already checked VAR. It seems quick.”

Should Leif Davis have been sent off?

• Match result: Fulham 2-2 Ipswich
• VAR says: No red card
• Squawka poll says: Red card (51.3%)

Fulham 2-2 Ipswich – 27’

Harry Wilson was racing through on goal for Fulham against Ipswich when he was brought down by Leif Davis. The referee only produced a yellow card, but Fulham fans had hoped for a red for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 7, 2025

Fulham’s 2-2 draw with Ipswich was full of incidents, with three penalties — two for Fulham and one for Ipswich. But Fulham will feel their opponents should have been down to 10 men too. Midway through the first half, Harry Wilson was racing through on goal when he was brought down by Leif Davis. Had Wilson got past Davis, he’d have been one-on-one with the goalkeeper, which is why Fulham were asking for a red card. But the referee only produced a yellow, perhaps because Wilson’s touch took him slightly away from goal — so he could have been caught by another defender. It’s an interesting one though, that may not have been overturned had the referee sent Davis off.

Should Nottingham Forest have had a penalty?

• Match result: Wolves 0-3 Nottingham Forest
• VAR says: No penalty
• Squawka poll says: Penalty (60.4%)

Wolves 0-3 Nottingham Forest – 33’

Nottingham Forest wanted a penalty after Ola Aina’s cross into the box hit Rayan Ait-Nouri’s arm. The referee felt that Ait-Nouri’s arm was in a natural position, and the decision was checked and confirmed by VAR.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 7, 2025

Capping off a busy weekend, Nottingham Forest felt they should have had a penalty in their 3-0 win over Wolves. Ola Aina put a cross into the box which struck the arm of Rayan Ait-Nouri. The Wolves’ defender had his arm slightly out from his body, but was also trying to get it out of the way. No penalty was given and there was a check by VAR. The review ruled in Wolves’ favour, especially as Ait-Nouri hadn’t moved his arm towards the ball. But Nottingham Forest fans were not happy with the lack of penalty.

---

GW19 VAR controversies

Should Ipswich have had a penalty against Chelsea?

• Match result: Ipswich 2-0 Chelsea
• VAR says: Penalty
• Squawka poll says: No penalty (53.3%)

Ipswich Town 2-0 Chelsea – 10’

The referee awarded a penalty for a foul by Filip Jörgensen on Liam Delap. VAR reviewed the decision and confirmed that there was sufficient contact for the penalty.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 3, 2025

Ipswich Town was awarded a penalty in the 10th minute when Liam Delap went down after a challenge from Chelsea goalkeeper Filip Jørgensen. The question arose whether the striker had dived. The incident was reviewed by the VAR, Michael Oliver.

Delap had touched the ball first, but after getting back up to continue, he went down and appealed for the penalty. Jørgensen had put the referee in a difficult position by rushing out and failing to win the ball.

In these situations, protocol states that if lower-body contact can be confirmed, the decision should stand—unless the attacker initiated the contact. In this case, the penalty would not have been awarded through VAR, as there wasn’t enough evidence to say the goalkeeper confidently made contact with the attacker.

However, it was also challenging to assert without any doubt that Delap wasn’t clipped as the goalkeeper slid in to challenge him. Most fans likely felt this should not have been a penalty, believing Delap went down too easily.

Did Chelsea have a goal unfairly disallowed?

• Match result: Ipswich 2-0 Chelsea
• VAR says: No goal
• Squawka poll says: No goal (79.6%)

Ipswich Town 2-0 Chelsea – 24’

Joao Felix’s goal, which was initially awarded on the field, was checked by VAR and found to be offside, leading to the goal being disallowed.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 3, 2025

The VAR intervention to disallow João Félix’s goal for offside in the 24th minute involved a lengthy review that lasted two minutes and 41 seconds before referee Brooks ruled it out. The VAR faced challenges in finding a suitable angle to draw the offside lines, as Félix was blocking the feet of the defenders on the main camera. After examining multiple angles, the VAR concluded that, although the lines could not be displayed, there was clear evidence that the Chelsea attacker was ahead of the defence when Cole Palmer made the pass.

Should Aston Villa have had a penalty?

• Match result: Aston Villa 2-2 Brighton
• VAR says: Penalty
• Squawka poll says: Penalty (66.7%)

Aston Villa 2-2 Brighton – 32’

The referee’s decision not to award a penalty to Aston Villa was reviewed by VAR, which determined there was sufficient contact by Joao Pedro on Morgan Rogers. The referee then overturned the original decision and awarded a penalty.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 3, 2025

In the 32nd minute, Aston Villa won a corner. Brighton goalkeeper Bart Verbruggen palmed the ball inside the six-yard box, where João Pedro challenged Morgan Rogers for the loose ball. Play continued with Lucas Digne having a shot saved, which then went behind for another corner. However, VAR official Stuart Attwell reviewed the situation for a potential penalty and instructed referee Craig Pawson to check the monitor.

Rogers managed to reach the ball ahead of Pedro, who kicked the Aston Villa midfielder after arriving slightly later. In cases where players challenge each other at a similar time and both have a reasonable chance of winning the ball, VAR is rarely used to award a penalty. This instance was consistent with that approach, and according to how VAR operates in the Premier League, no penalty should have been given.

Did Ryan Christie deserve a red card?

• Match result: Fulham 2-2 Bournemouth
• VAR says: No red card
• Squawka poll says: No red card (55.1%)

Fulham 2-2 Bournemouth – 43’

The referee issued a yellow card to Ryan Christie for a reckless challenge on Antonee Robinson. VAR checked for a potential red card and confirmed the referee’s call, deeming it not to be serious foul play.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 3, 2025

In the 42nd minute, Ryan Christie made a strong challenge on Antonee Robinson and received a yellow card from referee Rob Jones. Christie was off the ground when he led with one foot, making only slight contact with Robinson’s shin. The fact that Christie’s foot hit the ball first is irrelevant; what matters is how he made contact with the opponent. If there had been any more significant contact, it could have warranted a VAR intervention. This incident is very close to the line between a yellow and a red card. While the KMI Panel might classify this as a red card in real-time, it does not meet the threshold for VAR review.

Was there a foul in the build-up to Palace’s equaliser?

• Match result: Crystal Palace 2-1 Southampton
• VAR says: No foul
• Squawka poll says: No foul (61.3%)

Crystal Palace 2-1 Southampton – 31’

Trevoh Chalobah’s goal was initially awarded on the field. VAR reviewed the play and confirmed there was no foul on goalkeeper Aaron Ramsdale by Jean-Philippe Mateta.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 3, 2025

Crystal Palace equalised from a corner in the 31st minute when Trevoh Chalobah helped the ball into the net at the near post. However, there was a question of whether Jean-Philippe Mateta fouled goalkeeper Aaron Ramsdale in the process. Referee Michael Salisbury awarded the goal, and the decision was reviewed by VAR, managed by Graham Scott.

We have seen similar scenarios frequently in recent seasons, and such a goal would likely be disallowed on the continent. As Palace manager Oliver Glasner commented after the match, “It’s a foul all over Europe but not in England and not in the Premier League. This situation is well-known, and it often leads to goals being accepted in Premier League football. Not every contact is considered a foul.”

The VAR will only intervene if there is clear evidence that the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball has been adversely affected, or if an attacker has actively impeded him from reaching it. Simply standing one’s ground as an attacker will not result in a goal being disallowed.

Was Newcastle’s second goal illegal?

• Match result: Man United 0-2 Newcastle
• VAR says: No handball
• Squawka poll says: No handball (60.4%)

Manchester United 0-2 Newcastle – 19’

The referee’s decision to award a goal was checked by VAR, which confirmed that Joelinton did not handle the ball while scoring.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 3, 2025

Joelinton extended Newcastle’s lead in the 19th minute by guiding a cross from Anthony Gordon into the net. However, there is a question about whether he handled the ball before scoring. Earlier in the season, AFC Bournemouth had a late winning goal disallowed against Newcastle due to a handball by Dango Ouattara. The circumstances of both situations are quite similar, with each player jumping to win a header and the ball deflecting off their upper arm.

In Ouattara’s case, the goal should not have been disallowed, as confirmed by referees’ chief Howard Webb, who acknowledged it as a mistake. There was not enough conclusive evidence to show that the ball hit Ouattara’s arm in a manner that constituted a handball offence. The same reasoning applies to Joelinton’s situation.

---

GW18 VAR controversies

Should Durán’s red have been downgraded?

• Match result: Newcastle 2-0 Aston Villa
• VAR says: Red card
• Squawka poll says: No red card (61%)

Newcastle 3-0 Aston Villa – 32’

The referee issued a red card to Jhon Durán for violent conduct. The VAR checked the decision and confirmed the referee’s call.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 3, 2025

In the 31st minute, Fabian Schär and Jhon Durán chased a long ball. Schär reached it first and played it out for a throw-in. As both players landed on the ground, Durán accidentally caught the Newcastle United defender on the back with his foot. Anthony Taylor took his time to make a decision before issuing a red card for violent conduct. The decision was then checked by VAR official Graham Scott.

Situations like this often occur in matches, and referees frequently opt to issue a yellow card instead. When a decision goes to VAR, the focus is on the offending player’s intentions: Was it a natural collision or just a coming together, or did the player act with intent? The key question was whether Durán meant to kick Schär or if it was merely a consequence of losing his balance. Since the VAR officials could not determine Durán’s intent with certainty, they chose not to intervene with the on-field decision.

Aston Villa later lost their appeal against Durán’s three-match ban. There was enough uncertainty regarding Durán’s intentions to suggest that had Taylor issued a yellow card instead, he likely would not have been called to the monitor for a review. The situation could be seen as petulant, and a yellow card would not have warranted further review. This highlights the contradictions inherent in the VAR system. Although Taylor’s decision to show a red card may seem harsh, it was also within the bounds of acceptable refereeing.

Did Rodríguez deserve a red card?

• Match result: Southampton 0-1 West Ham
• VAR says: No red card
• Squawka poll says: No red card (79.6%)

Southampton 0-1 West Ham – 52’

The VAR recommended an on-field review of the referee’s decision to issue a red card to Guido Rodríguez. After the review, the referee overturned his original decision of serious foul play to a yellow card.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 3, 2025

In the 51st minute, referee Lewis Smith issued a red card to Guido Rodríguez for a robust challenge on Southampton’s Kyle Walker-Peters. The decision was subsequently reviewed by VAR official Stuart Attwell. This incident marked the first instance this season where VAR successfully intervened to reverse a red card, despite a prior situation involving Manchester United’s Bruno Fernandes against Tottenham that went unaddressed.

Smith assessed that Rodríguez made substantial contact with Walker-Peters’ shin. However, video replays indicated that the tackle was less severe than initially perceived, with only slight contact occurring on the boot. The evidence suggested that the challenge did not endanger the opponent’s safety nor did it involve the excessive force typically associated with serious foul play.

The VAR’s intervention was justified, as it rectified a clear mistake, aligning with the expectations of fans who anticipated such corrections when VAR was implemented seven years ago. This decision underscores the system’s intended purpose of enhancing fairness in the game.

Did the Foxes concede an unfair goal?

• Match result: Liverpool 3-1 Leicester
• VAR says: Goal
• Squawka poll says: Goal (65.3%)

Liverpool 3-1 Leicester – 49’

The referee’s call of a goal was checked and confirmed by the VAR, which determined that Mohamed Salah was in an onside position during the build-up.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 3, 2025

Liverpool took the lead in the 49th minute when Curtis Jones scored from close range. However, there was a lengthy VAR check for offside involving Mohamed Salah. This was one of two offside checks on Liverpool goals that took an unusually long time—overall, it took three minutes from the moment the goal was scored until the referee confirmed it would stand. The second check took even longer, lasting three minutes and 42 seconds, as it reviewed two situations and ultimately confirmed that Darwin Núñez had committed an offside offence before Cody Gakpo put the ball in the net. Both decisions were correct based on the on-field view, but while subjective checks have become quicker, offside decisions often disrupt the flow of the game. With semi-automated offside technology unlikely to arrive this season, it seems this issue will not change anytime soon.

The check on Salah was particularly frustrating because it was unnecessary; it went back 18 seconds before the goal was scored. In determining whether an attacking phase has ended, time is not the defining factor; rather, it is about the overall direction of play and whether the defending team is organized. Even if a Leicester player touched the ball while trying to intercept, the attacking phase should not be considered reset. It must involve controlled possession. While the VAR, Chris Kavanagh, arguably had a valid reason for checking the offside, it stretched the protocol typically applied in the Premier League. The goal should have stood without reviewing Salah’s offside position.

Should João Pedro have been sent off?

• Match result: Brighton 0-0 Brentford
• VAR says: No red card
• Squawka poll says: Red card (79.8%)

Brighton 0-0 Brentford – 75’

The referee’s decision not to issue a red card to João Pedro for violent conduct was checked by VAR, which confirmed that the referee’s call was not clearly and obviously wrong.

— Squawka (@Squawka) January 3, 2025

In the 75th minute, João Pedro was pulled back by Yehor Yarmoliuk near the halfway line. After initially breaking free, Pedro swung his elbow in Yarmoliuk’s direction. Andy Madley issued a yellow card to the Brentford player for stopping what could have been a promising attack, while taking no action against Pedro. VAR official Chris Kavanagh reviewed the footage to determine whether Pedro had committed violent conduct.

Brentford manager Thomas Frank commented, “As I understand the rules, you can’t swing an arm to hit someone, whether you hit them or not.”

On the other hand, Brighton manager Fabian Hürzeler disagreed, saying, “For me, it’s not a red card. Why would it be a red card? You just try to get free from someone.”

Hürzeler’s interpretation of the situation was more lenient, but it was evident that the VAR sided with a stricter view. Regardless of Pedro’s intentions, it was clear that his action was dangerous and could be considered violent, and football generally would expect a red card in such cases.

According to the laws of the game, violent conduct is defined as when “a player uses or attempts to use excessive force … regardless of whether contact is made.”

Pedro glanced over his shoulder and then threw his elbow back. The question arises: Was this gesture meant to intimidate or genuinely violent? If a player pretends to headbutt an opponent without intending to make contact, should that action also warrant a red card? If it’s clear there was no chance of contact, can we still categorise it as violent conduct?

Did Pedro know where Yarmoliuk was positioned, or was it simply a missed attempt? We should avoid trying to differentiate between bad judgment and bad luck when it comes to such actions, as allowing players to throw elbows simply because they feel wronged is unacceptable.

This was a peculiar situation, and it’s likely there would have been minimal complaints had a red card been issued after a VAR review. In fact, when a decision is harder to justify not giving than to give, it often indicates that issuing the red card would have been the correct call.

---

GW17 VAR controversies

Should Estupinan’s yellow have been upgraded?

• Match result: West Ham 1-1 Brighton
• VAR says: No red card
• Squawka poll says: Red card (77.1%)

West Ham 1-1 Brighton – 84′

The referee issued a yellow card to Pervis Estupiñán for a challenge on Maximilian Kilman. VAR reviewed the situation for a potential red card but determined that the referee’s decision was not clearly and obviously wrong.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 23, 2024

Late on in Brighton’s 1-1 draw with West Ham at the London Stadium, Pervis Estupinan was booked for a challenge on Maximilian Kilman. But there were calls for it to have been more. Estupinan left the ground with both feet raised, catching Kilman high on the legs. Replays showed that the tackle caused Kilman’s shin pad to move — and the West Ham man was fortunate that they did their job. VAR reviewed the decision and did not deem it enough for a clear and obvious error.

But former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher believes Estupinan was lucky, and that this was something VAR should have caught even if the referee initially missed it.

“I think it’s a red card. He’s flying through the air, he’s out of control. It catches him high, catches him full-force with his studs,” he told Sky Sports’ Ref Watch.

Was a yellow enough for Clyne against Arsenal?

• Match result: Crystal Palace 1-5 Arsenal
• VAR says: No red card
• Squawka poll says: Red card (57.6%)

Crystal Palace 1-5 Arsenal – 79′

The referee issued Nathaniel Clyne a yellow card for a reckless challenge on Riccardo Calafiori. VAR examined the challenge for a potential red card and confirmed the referee’s decision, stating that it did not constitute serious foul play.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 23, 2024

As Arsenal romped to a 5-1 win over Crystal Palace at Selhurst Park, there were calls for the Eagles to be reduced to 10 men. Nathaniel Clyne was booked for a reckless challenge on Riccardo Calafiori which, of course, was then checked by VAR. The tackle was from close range and lacked intensity, but Clyne caught Calafiori on the ankle. The Italian’s ankle even buckled slightly from the contact. But, again, it wasn’t seen as serious foul play.

Should Chelsea have had a penalty against Everton?

• Match result: Everton 0-0 Chelsea
• VAR says: No penalty
• Squawka poll says: No penalty (54.2%)

Everton 0-0 Chelsea – 34’

Jordan Pickford caught Malo Gusto with a challenge in the penalty era, connecting with the full-back’s leg. Replays showed Pickford did get a slight touch on the ball first. No foul was given and a check from VAR agreed with the on-field decision.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 23, 2024

Chelsea’s winning run came to an end with a goalless draw against Everton. But in the first half the Blues thought they should have had a penalty. Jordan Pickford brought Malo Gusto down in the box, connecting with the Frenchman’s leg. Although he was also in the process of trying to deny a shot, Pickford led with his legs, making a tackle rather than a shot.

Gallagher said: “Pickford has chosen not to be a goalkeeper here, he’s chosen to be an outfield player. If a full-back makes that challenge, he’s going to give a penalty away.”

But Pickford did manage to get a touch on the ball which is what may have saved his side in both the eyes of the referee and VAR.

---

GW16 VAR controversies

Did Issa Diop deserve a red card?

• Match result: Liverpool 2-2 Fulham
• VAR says: No red card
• Squawka poll says: No red card (53.1%)

Liverpool 2-2 Fulham – 1′

The referee awarded a yellow card to Issa Diop for a challenge on Andrew Robertson. VAR reviewed the incident for a possible red card and upheld the referee’s decision for a reckless challenge and yellow card.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 17, 2024

Issa Diop received a yellow card in the second minute for a challenge on Andrew Robertson. Diop caught the Liverpool player high on the leg as Robertson attempted to run into the area. The VAR reviewed the incident to determine if it warranted a red card. Diop’s contact with Robertson resulted from a miskick while trying to clear the ball.

The challenge was mistimed but did not involve excessive force or intensity; however, such situations often prompt questions about the appropriateness of a red card. Despite an offside flag raised moments earlier against Cody Gakpo, the yellow card remains valid because the challenge was reckless and not directly linked to the specific phase of play.

As Diop attempted to clear the ball and made only light contact with Robertson, a yellow card was deemed an acceptable decision on the field.

Should Andreas Pereira have been sent off?

• Match result: Liverpool 2-2 Fulham
• VAR says: No red card
• Squawka poll says: Red card (53.8%)

Liverpool 2-2 Fulham – 9′

Ryan Gravenberch was brought down by a challenge from Andreas Pereira, who raked his studs down the Reds midfielder’s achilles. VAR supported the referee’s initial decision to book Pereira instead of issuing a red.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 17, 2024

In the ninth minute, Fulham’s Andreas Pereira received a booking for a foul on Ryan Gravenberch, prompting a review for a potential red card.

During the recent episode of “Match Officials Mic’d Up,” Howard Webb, the referees’ chief, addressed several instances of serious foul play, including a foul by Leicester City’s Wilfred Ndidi on Cole Palmer. Ndidi’s action, which involved stepping on Palmer’s heel, resulted in a yellow card, a decision that VAR upheld.

Following Webb’s comments, there was an expectation that a red card should have been issued. Yet, it’s important to note that two fouls are never exactly the same. Pereira exerted far less force in his contact, making a yellow card a more acceptable outcome in that case.

“I think it’s a yellow card as well,” Dermot Gallagher added on Sky Sports Ref Watch “I think he catches him but he doesn’t catch him with any force… he’s mistimed it but I think it’s a yellow card.”

Were Arsenal denied a penalty?

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

Arsenal 0-0 Everton – 90+1′

A late penalty appeal for a tackle by Vitalii Mykolenko on Thomas Partey was waved away by referee Craig Pawson, a decision that VAR upheld.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 17, 2024

In the 90th minute, Thomas Partey entered the penalty area and went down after a challenge from Vitaliy Mykolenko. Referee Craig Pawson decided to let play continue as the Everton defender emerged with the ball. VAR official Paul Tierney reviewed the situation for a potential penalty. It was a close call for Mykolenko, who took a risk in attempting to win the ball from Partey. He managed to get a slight touch on the ball before hooking it away and gaining possession.

The VAR replays indicated that, without that initial touch, it could be perceived that Mykolenko had committed a foul before making contact with the ball. However, the referee’s on-field decision and the evidence of Mykolenko’s touch meant that a VAR intervention was unlikely, although it was a close decision.

Did Elliot Anderson foul Morgan Rogers?

• Match result: Nottingham Forest 2-1 Aston Villa
• VAR says: No penalty
• Squawka poll says: No penalty (54.6%)

Nottingham Forest 2-1 Aston Villa – 34′

The VAR reviewed and upheld the referee’s decision of no penalty for Elliot Anderson’s challenge on Morgan Rogers.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 17, 2024

In the 35th minute, Morgan Rogers went down in the penalty area after Elliot Anderson tugged at him, yet referee Sam Barrott considered the contact too minor to warrant a stoppage in play. This decision comes after two comparable incidents earlier this season that may have influenced the referee’s judgment.

In September, Crysencio Summerville of West Ham sought a penalty when Chelsea’s Wesley Fofana held his arm, but VAR did not suggest a review. The KMI Panel was divided, with a 3-2 vote in favour of a penalty but a 4-1 majority against a VAR intervention. Similarly, Marc Guéhi of Crystal Palace made a penalty appeal against Liverpool’s Virgil van Dijk in October, which was also rejected.

Had Fofana been penalised, it raises the question of whether Anderson would have been held accountable for his challenge on Rogers. While Anderson’s actions mirrored Fofana’s, they appeared to be less severe. If VAR had awarded a penalty to Aston Villa, the decision would likely have been negated due to Rogers’ prior infringement on Anderson’s shirt.

Did Nottingham Forest have a goal unfairly disallowed?

• Match result: Nottingham Forest 2-1 Aston Villa
• VAR says: No goal
• Squawka poll says: No goal (64.7%)

Nottingham Forest 2-1 Aston Villa – 81′

The VAR reviewed the referee’s call for a goal and determined that Antony Elanga was offside during the play. Therefore, the goal was disallowed.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 17, 2024

Gary Lineker has called for a change in the offside decision process after Chris Wood had a goal controversially disallowed for offside during Nottingham Forest’s match against Aston Villa.

Nottingham Forest players were left in disbelief when a VAR check determined that Anthony Elanga’s shoulder was offside as he crossed the ball for Wood, which would have been an equaliser. This incident added to a dramatic evening at the City Ground, although Forest managed to regroup and secure all three points, with Elanga scoring the winning goal.

After reviewing the key moments on Match of the Day, Lineker shared his thoughts with the football authorities: “I’m not sure about the Chris Wood offside. How they can judge from that shoulder incident, I will never know. They should change it, but there you go.”

Were Man United denied a second penalty?

• Match result: Man City 1-2 Man United
• VAR says: No penalty
• Squawka poll says: Penalty (67%)

Man City 1-2 Man United – 67′

The referee’s decision of no penalty for the challenge between Rasmus Højlund and Ruben Dias was reviewed by VAR, which confirmed it as normal contact.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 17, 2024

In the 64th minute, Rasmus Højlund ran into the penalty area and fell after being challenged by Rúben Dias. Højlund asked the referee for a penalty, but referee Anthony Taylor called for a goal kick when the ball went out of play. The situation was reviewed by VAR, with Stuart Attwell overseeing the check.

This incident raised many questions on social media, but when seen at full speed, it looked like a normal clash between two players. Højlund chested the ball forward, and as it dropped, Dias tried to touch it. There might have been a slight touch from Dias, but it was hard to see. At the same time, Højlund leaned into Dias to try to control the ball.

The main question was whether Dias intended to trip Højlund or if the contact was just part of the challenge. Did the contact really cause Højlund to fall? This decision was left to the on-field officials, no matter the outcome. While one could argue it was a penalty, the case was not strong enough for VAR to intervene.

Should West Ham have had a penalty?

• Match result: Bournemouth 1-1 West Ham
• VAR says: Penalty
• Squawka poll says: No penalty (56.5%)

Bournemouth 1-1 West Ham – 87′

The VAR sent the referee to the monitor after Aaron Wan Bissaka’s cross brushed Tyler Adam’s hand inside the box late on. A penalty was awarded.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 17, 2024

Bournemouth manager Andoni Iraola criticised a controversial penalty awarded to West Ham in a dramatic 1-1 draw at Vitality Stadium, claiming it contradicted Premier League referees’ advice.

The penalty was granted after VAR intervened, with match official Chris Kavanagh penalising Bournemouth’s Tyler Adams for a handball that most fans missed during a near-header by West Ham’s Niclas Fullkrug.

Lucas Paquetá converted the penalty in the 87th minute, but Bournemouth equalised with a stunning free-kick from Enes Ünal in the 90th minute.

Referencing discussions held with Professional Game Match Officials Limited before the current campaign. He stated, “I’m very, very disappointed with the penalty because it was an action we had discussed with the referees prior to the season.

“They explicitly instructed us not to tell our players to defend with their hands behind their backs, as it isn’t natural. I mentioned that we were advising this approach to avoid penalties, and the official responded, ‘Don’t worry, it’s natural; it’s not going to cost you.’ But then, bam: a penalty is awarded.

“It’s clearly a natural reaction for anyone who has played football. When you rush to block a shot or a cross, you typically have one hand down and one hand up. That’s how it is. The trajectory of the ball doesn’t significantly change. They nearly scored from a header by Fullkrug, and I’m very disappointed by the outcome.

“Nobody seemed to notice it live, but that’s not the issue. The problem is that we were specifically told that defenders couldn’t defend with their hands behind their backs because we don’t want the game to be played that way. What should I tell the defenders next week?”

---

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%)

Tottenham 3-4 Chelsea

33’ – Moises Caicedo tackled Pape Matar Sarr, catching the Tottenham midfielder on the shin with his studs. A free-kick was awarded but no card. The incident was checked for a red card by VAR, confirming the referee’s call of no serious foul play.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 10, 2024

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%)

Tottenham 3-4 Chelsea

45’ – Dejan Kulusevski challenged Romeo Lavia for the ball and caught the Chelsea midfielder with his elbow. The referee awarded a free-kick but no card. This was checked by VAR, but it was deemed not enough to overturn the on-field decision.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 10, 2024

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 1-2 Bournemouth

26’ – Ipswich thought they had gone 2-0 up when Cameron Burgess scored a header. But the referee instead blew for a foul on Kepa Arrizabalaga by Liam Delap. VAR reviewed the decision and confirmed the call of a free-kick to Bournemouth.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 10, 2024

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%)

West Ham 2-1 Wolves

68’ – Wolves wanted a penalty for a foul by Emerson on Goncalo Guedes. The initial verdict was a free-kick, though it was close to the line. This decision was confirmed by VAR deeming that the contact was outside the box.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 10, 2024

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%)

West Ham 2-1 Wolves

83’ – Wolves appealed for a penalty after Konstantinos Mavropanos stood on Jean-Ricner Bellegarde’s foot inside the box. No penalty was given on the pitch and the VAR decided that there was no clear and obvious error from the referee.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 10, 2024

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%)

Aston Villa 3-1 Brentford

25’ – Ethan Pinnock brought down Ollie Watkins inside the area, with a penalty given and a yellow card shown. VAR checked for DOGSO but deemed that Pinnock hade made a genuine attempt for the ball and hadn’t pulled Watkins back, despite his hands being…

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 7, 2024

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%)

Newcastle 3-3 Liverpool

38’ – Anthony Gordon went down after an off-the-ball bodycheck from Virgil van Dijk. As the ball was still live, both a penalty and a red card could be reviewed. VAR judged that Van Dijk lead with his shoulder, not his arm or elbow, so the incident didn’t…

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 7, 2024

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%)

Newcastle 3-3 Liverpool

77’ – Alexander Isak went down under a challenge from Jarell Quansah, but play was allowed to continue by Andy Madley. The decision was reviewed by VAR but they spotted a touch on the ball from Quansah before he made contact with Isak.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 7, 2024

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%)

Southampton 1-5 Chelsea

38’ – Southampton captain Jack Stephens was shown a straight red card after VAR spotted him pulling the hair of Chelsea’s Marc Cucurella. Stephens was sent off for a violent conduct offence.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 7, 2024

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%)

Everton 4-0 Wolves

16’ – James Tarkowski headed home a Dwight McNeil free-kick at the far post for Everton, but VAR judged that Orel Mangala blocked Mario Lemina’s defensive run and was stood in an offside position. The goal was disallowed after an on-field review from Michael…

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 7, 2024

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%)

Brighton 1-1 Southampton

68’ – Cameron Archer had a goal ruled out for Southampton after VAR confirmed that Stuart Armstrong was in an offside position and affected Bart Verbruggen’s ability to play the ball.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 2, 2024

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 2-4 Bournemouth

15’ – Bournemouth were initially denied a penalty for Jose Sa’s challenge on Evanilson. However, VAR reviewed the play and noted sufficient contact with Evanilson’s left heel, leading to an on-field review. The referee then changed the decision and awarded…

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 2, 2024

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%)

West Ham 2-5 Arsenal

45+2’ – Lukasz Fabianski came off his line to punch away a corner, making contact with Gabriel’s face while also getting a piece of the ball. After a lengthy VAR check, a penalty was awarded for a reckless challenge.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 2, 2024

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%)

Tottenham 1-1 Fulham

82’ – Tom Cairney received a yellow card for a challenge on Dejan Kulusevski, but VAR recommended an on-field review for serious foul play. The referee then issued a red card to Cairney.

— Squawka (@Squawka) December 2, 2024

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%)

Leicester 1-2 Chelsea

22’ – Wilfred Ndidi was booked for a tackle on Cole Palmer, coming in from behind and standing on his heel. The incident was reviewed by VAR for a possible red, but felt a yellow was sufficient.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 26, 2024

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 1-2 Chelsea

84’ – Before Leicester were awarded their penalty, they had another penalty checked. Stephy Mavididi went down in the box after contact with Wesley Fofana but it was not given by the referee. The VAR felt there was not enough to overturn the decision.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 26, 2024

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 0-0 Brentford

39’ – Brentford captain Christian Norgaard was sent off for a high tackle on Jordan Pickford as he challenged for the ball. Nothing was given on the pitch but VAR recommended a review for a red card, for serious foul play.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 26, 2024

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%)

Southampton 2-3 Liverpool

40’ – Southampton were awarded a penalty for a foul on Tyler Dibling from Andy Robertson, though it was close to the line of the box. The on-field decision remained with no conclusive evidence of the contact occurring outside the penalty area.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 26, 2024

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%)

Southampton 2-3 Liverpool

23’ – Adam Lallana was booked for a challenge on Ryan Gravenberch after losing the ball, catching the Dutchman above the ankle. The tackle was checked for a potential red card, but there was no evidence for VAR of it being an error.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 26, 2024

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: No penalty (50.3%)

Newcastle 0-2 West Ham

72’ – Callum Wilson went down in the box under a challenge from Konstantinos Mavropanos, trying to get his head onto a cross. The referee did not feel it was enough for a penalty, and VAR agreed.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 26, 2024

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%)

Liverpool 2-0 Aston Villa

58’ VAR checked for a potential penalty after Conor Bradley pulled Pau Torres down in the box.

But no review was recommended.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 11, 2024

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%)

Liverpool 2-0 Aston Villa

85’ As Mohamed Salah scored for Liverpool, VAR checked another potential penalty at the other end, for Ryan Gravenberch’s challenge on Pau Torres.

But the challenge was deemed fair, and Liverpool’s goal stood with no Villa penalty.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 11, 2024

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%)

Wolves 2-0 Southampton

12’ – Southampton thought they had equalised through Ryan Manning.

But the goal was overturned after VAR recommended an on-field review for a foul from Mateus Fernandes on Nelson Semedo in the build up.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 11, 2024

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%)

Man Utd 1-1 Chelsea

14′ Robert Jones dismissed Chelsea’s requests for a penalty after Colwill fell inside the box following a challenge from Lisandro Martinez.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 5, 2024

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%)

Man Utd 1-1 Chelsea

90+3′ The referee issued a yellow card to Lisandro Martinez for a challenge on Cole Palmer.

VAR checked for a potential red card and confirmed the referee’s call of no red card, deeming that it was a reckless challenge and not serious foul play.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 5, 2024

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 1-0 Everton

76′ Southampton’s Jan Bednarek escaped with only a yellow card following a VAR check for bringing down Beto as he tried to burst through.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 5, 2024

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%)

Southampton 1-0 Everton

24′ Cameron Archer was fouled by a strong challenge from James Tarkowski, leading to the Everton defender receiving a yellow card from referee Andy Madley.

VAR reviewed the incident for a possible red card and confirmed the on-field decision.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 5, 2024

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%)

Ipswich 1-1 Leicester

77′ Leicester’s Abdul Fatawu barged into Ipswich’s Conor Chaplin in the box, but penalty appeals were immediately waved away.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 5, 2024

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%)

Bournemouth 2-1 Man City

56′ Bournemouth midfielder Lewis Cook slides in on Man City’s Erling Haaland and catches him on the ankle.

There are appeals for a red card, but he does not receive one.

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 5, 2024

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%)

Wolves 2-2 Crystal Palace

90+6′ Crystal Palace had what would have been a late winner against Wolves disallowed for a foul on goalkeeper Jose Sa.

The referee called the foul on the pitch, with VAR confirming that Sa was considered to be in control of the ball which was…

— Squawka (@Squawka) November 5, 2024

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 2-1 Newcastle

90′ Referee gave a penalty for Burn’s pull on Nkunku inside the box. VAR deemed no foul was committed and the referee overturned his original decision.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 28, 2024

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%)

West Ham 2-1 Man Utd

87′ Referee did not initially award a penalty for a challenge by Matthijs de Ligt on Danny Ings. However, VAR deemed there was sufficient contact on the leg of Ings to warrant overturning the decision.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 28, 2024

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%)

Brentford 4-3 Ipswich

60′ Keane Lewis-Potter goes down inside the box after crossing the path of Harry Clarke. Referee initially gives the free-kick. Upon VAR review, a penalty is given as the foul is deemed to ‘continue inside the box’ despite the initial contact occurring…

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 28, 2024

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%)

Aston Villa 1-1 Bournemouth

27′ John McGinn goal was disallowed after VAR deemed the ball had already crossed the line to go out of play as Ollie Watkins retrieved an overhit Morgan Rogers cross.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 28, 2024

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%)

Liverpool 2-1 Chelsea

Chelsea defender Tosin Adarabioyo escaped an early red card against Liverpool despite pulling down Diogo Jota inside his own half at Anfield.

Should he have been given a red card?

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 22, 2024

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%)

Bournemouth 2-0 Arsenal

The referee gave Saliba a yellow card for a challenge on Evanilson. The VAR deemed that Saliba denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and recommended an on-field review. The referee then upgraded the yellow to a red card.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 22, 2024

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%)

Wolves 1-2 Man City

Stones’ goal was disallowed on-field due to Bernardo Silva being in an offside position and in the goalkeeper’s line of vision. VAR deemed Bernardo Silva wasn’t in the line of vision and had no impact on the goalkeeper and recommended an on-field review.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 22, 2024

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%)

Southampton 2-3 Leicester

The referee did not award Leicester a penalty for Fraser’s challenge on Vardy. VAR deemed that Fraser held Vardy and impacted his opportunity to challenge for the ball and recommended an on-field review. The referee overturned his original decision and…

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 22, 2024

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%)

Southampton 2-3 Leicester

A few moments earlier, Southampton did not get a penalty for a similar incident. Jordan Ayew was pulling on the shirt of Paul Onuachu in the box from a corner, when the Southampton man was attempting to get on the end of the cross. The referee did not…

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 22, 2024

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%)

Ipswich 0-2 Everton

The referee awarded a penalty to Ipswich for a foul by McNeil on Clarke. The VAR deemed that Clarke kicked the back of McNeil’s leg and that no foul was committed and recommended an on-field review. The referee overturned the original decision and play…

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 22, 2024

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%)

Fulham 1-3 Aston Villa

The referee issued a red card to Andersen for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. The VAR checked and confirmed the referee’s call. This was particularly contentious as the Fulham defender made little contact with Ollie Watkins.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 22, 2024

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%)

Crystal Palace 0-1 Liverpool

The referee’s call of no penalty for Van Dijk’s challenge on Guéhi was checked and confirmed by VAR, deeming that the challenge was not sustained holding and had no impact on the play.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 7, 2024

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 1-0 Bournemouth

The referee’s call of no penalty for the potential handball by Zabarnyi is checked and confirmed by VAR, deeming that his arm was in a natural position and the ball was played from close proximity.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 7, 2024

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%)

Everton 0-0 Newcastle

The referee’s call of no penalty for the challenge between Calvert-Lewin and Burn is checked and confirmed by VAR – deeming that Calvert-Lewin kicked the back of Burn’s leg.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 7, 2024

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%)

Aston Villa 0-0 Manchester United

The referee’s call of no penalty for the potential handball by Rogers was checked and confirmed by VAR, deeming that the ball was played from close proximity.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 7, 2024

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%)

Man Utd 0-3 Spurs

The referee issued a red card to Fernandes for a challenge on Maddison. The VAR checked and confirmed the referee’s call of serious foul play.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 1, 2024

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%)

Wolves 1-2 Liverpool

The referee awarded a penalty for a foul by Semedo on Jota. The VAR checked and confirmed the referee’s call, deeming that contact was sufficient for a penalty.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 1, 2024

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%)

Nottingham Forest 0-1 Fulham

The referee did not award a penalty to Fulham for a challenge by Murillo on Pereira. The VAR deemed there was a clear foul and recommended an on-field review. The referee overturned his original decision and awarded a penalty.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 1, 2024

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%)

Everton 2-1 Crystal Palace

James Tarkowski challenged Jean-Philippe Mateta on the edge of the penalty area, taking out both his legs. No penalty given.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 1, 2024

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 4-2 Leicester

Jamie Vardy appeared to be fouled by Saliba just before Arsenal’s opening goal, scored by Martinelli. VAR did not deem it a foul and the goal was given.

— Squawka (@Squawka) October 1, 2024

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%)

Crystal Palace 0-0 Man Utd

The referee issued a yellow card to Martínez for a challenge on Kamada. VAR checked for a potential red card but confirmed the referee’s call of no red card.

Should Martinez have been sent off?

— Squawka (@Squawka) September 23, 2024

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%)

West Ham 0-3 Chelsea

The referee’s decision to impose no penalty for Fofana’s challenge on Summerville was reviewed and confirmed by VAR, which deems that this was not a case of sustained holding.

Should West Ham have been awarded a penalty?

— Squawka (@Squawka) September 23, 2024

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

Man City 2-2 Arsenal

The referee issued a second yellow card to Leandro Trossard for delaying the restart.

Should Leandro Trossard have received a second yellow?

— Squawka (@Squawka) September 23, 2024

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%)

Spurs 0-1 Arsenal

The referee issued Timber a yellow card for a challenge on Porro. VAR checked for a potential red card and confirmed the referee’s call of no red card, deeming this a reckless challenge and not serious foul play.

Should Timber have been sent off?

— Squawka (@Squawka) September 17, 2024

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%)

Spurs 0-1 Arsenal

The referee issued Van de Ven a yellow card for a challenge on Trossard. VAR checked for a potential red card and confirmed the referee’s call of no red card, deeming this a reckless challenge and not serious foul play.

Should Van De Ven have been sent off?

— Squawka (@Squawka) September 17, 2024

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%)

Crystal Palace 2-2 Leicester

Mateta’s goal is initially ruled out for offside, but VAR ruled that he was onside and awarded the goal.

Should Mateta’s goal have counted?

— Squawka (@Squawka) September 17, 2024

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%)

Bournemouth 0-1 Chelsea

The referee awarded a penalty for a foul by Sanchez on Evanilson and issued a yellow card to Sanchez, judging that his actions were a genuine attempt to play the ball but denied an obvious goal-scoring opportunity. The VAR reviewed the incident and…

— Squawka (@Squawka) September 17, 2024

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 0-3 Man Utd

The referee issued a red card to Stephens for a foul on Garnacho. VAR checked and confirmed the referee’s call of serious foul play.

Should Stephens have been sent off?

— Squawka (@Squawka) September 17, 2024

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%)

Arsenal 1-1 Brighton

The VAR confirmed the referee’s decision of no penalty for the potential handball by Dunk, as his arm was in a natural position.

Should the Gunners have been awarded a penalty? 🤔

— Squawka (@Squawka) September 2, 2024

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%)

Newcastle 2-1 Tottenham

The referee gave Sarr a yellow card for a challenge on Kelly. VAR reviewed for a potential red card and upheld the referee’s decision, ruling the challenge as reckless and not serious foul play.

Should Sarr should have been sent off? 🤔

— Squawka (@Squawka) September 2, 2024

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%)

Newcastle 2-1 Tottenham

The referee gave Maddison a yellow card for a challenge on Guimarães. VAR reviewed the play for a potential red card and upheld the referee’s decision, ruling that the challenge was reckless but not serious foul play.

Should Maddison have been sent off?…

— Squawka (@Squawka) September 2, 2024

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 1-1 Newcastle

Dango Ouattara’s 90+3’ goal was disallowed after VAR checked for handball.

Should Bournemouth’s goal have stood?

— Squawka (@Squawka) August 27, 2024

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%)

Bournemouth 1-1 Newcastle

Minutes later Joelinton was cautioned for deliberately pulling Neto down by the neck to prevent a Bournemouth counter-attack.

Should Joelinton have been sent off?

— Squawka (@Squawka) August 27, 2024

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%)

Wolves 2-6 Chelsea

VAR confirmed the referee’s decision to show Yerson Mosquera a yellow card for a 70th-minute challenge on Moises Caicedo.

Should Mosquera have been sent off?

— Squawka (@Squawka) August 27, 2024

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 4-1 Ipswich

Man City were awarded a 10th-minute penalty for Leif Davis’ challenge on Savinho after VAR intervention.

Was it a penalty?

— Squawka (@Squawka) August 27, 2024

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%)

Man City 4-1 Ipswich

In the 43rd-minute Ipswich were denied a penalty for Savinho’s challenge on Leif Davis despite a VAR check.

Should Ipswich have been awarded a penalty?

— Squawka (@Squawka) August 27, 2024

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?

• Match result: Chelsea 0-2 Man City
• VAR says: No penalty
• Squawka poll says: Penalty (54.2%)

Chelsea vs Man City

VAR checked a potential penalty for a handball by Kovacic. Confirmed call of no penalty.

Should Chelsea have been awarded a penalty for handball?

— Squawka (@Squawka) August 20, 2024

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?

• Match result: West Ham 1-2 Aston Villa
• VAR says: Penalty
• Squawka poll says: Penalty (60.3%)

West Ham vs Aston Villa

The referee awarded a penalty for a foul by Cash on Souček. VAR checked and confirmed the referee’s call.

Should West Ham have been awarded a penalty?

— Squawka (@Squawka) August 20, 2024

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%)

Everton vs Brighton

The referee awarded a penalty to Everton for a foul by Dunk on Calvert-Lewin. This decision was overturned after a VAR review.

Should Everton have been awarded a penalty?

— Squawka (@Squawka) August 20, 2024

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%)

Newcastle vs Southampton

The referee issued a red card to Schär for violent conduct. VAR decided not to overturn the on-field decision.

Should Schär have been sent off?

— Squawka (@Squawka) August 20, 2024

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%)

Chelsea vs Man City

VAR checked a potential penalty for a challenge by Savinho on Enzo and confirmed the referee’s call of no penalty.

Should Chelsea have been awarded a penalty?

— Squawka (@Squawka) August 20, 2024

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:

• Football betting tips
• Best betting sites
• Best free bet offers
• Live stream today's football
• Football accumulator tips