Dale Johnson General Editor, ESPN FC22. May 2023 08:40 ET12 minutes read
Michallik: Liverpool will be singing from Firmino for decades
Janusz Michallik explains what Liverpool will lose if Roberto Firmino ends his time at the club.
The video assistant referee creates controversy every week in the Premier League but how are decisions made and are they right?
After each weekend we take a look at the key incidents to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.
– How VAR decisions impacted every Prem club in 2022-23
– VAR in the Premier League: Ultimate Guide
In this week’s VAR review: A look at Liverpool’s disallowed goal against Aston Villa, a possible red card for Tyrone Mings for Cody Gakpo and Jordan Henderson’s penalty claim in the same game. Also, should Arsenal striker Gabriel Jesus have been awarded a penalty at Nottingham Forest?
Possible offside: Van Dijk in front of Gakpo goal
What happened: With Villa leading 1-0, Liverpool equalized in the 54th minute. Trent Alexander-Arnold swung a ball and Luis Diaz tried to head back across the box. It broke away from Aston Villa defender Ezri Konsa, fell to Virgil van Dijk and after a short melee, Cody Gakpo shot into the net. But there was an offside control in the build-up play.
VAR decision: Gate not recognized.
VAR Review: First, the direction the ball is moving is not relevant to an offside determination; It can be played forward, backward or square. So with Van Dijk in front of the ball and Diaz nodding it backwards, the Netherlands international is active.
That means Van Dijk has to be flagged for offside to reset the phase unless Konsa makes an “intentional play” with the ball.
Virgil van Dijk is clearly flagged for offside when Luis Diaz heads the ball. BBC
When the IFAB clarified the guidelines for “deliberate play” earlier in the season, the intent was to end the controversy over players gaining an advantage by being offside. But – as has been the case with most legislative revisions in recent years – it has created an over-complicated level of subjectivity that leads to goals like this not being allowed.
Was Konsa trying to play the ball on purpose? Yes. Was it an “intentional play” of the ball by Konsa? Not necessarily. This is clumsy wording by the legislature, because the point here is that a player has control over his actions and the outcome. It doesn’t excuse defensive failure, but it does mean that an attacker shouldn’t take advantage if the defender has performed a Reflex Action.
“Deliberate play” occurs when a player is in control of the ball and has the ability to:
– passing the ball to a team-mate;
– or gain possession of the ball;
– or clear the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading).
The ball came at Konsa from close range and fell behind him until he tried to touch the ball with his foot while disengaging from his leg just below his knee and running towards Van Dijk.
Ezri Konsa had no control over the ball’s aim as it deflected off his knee.BBC
Another clause for “intentional play” requires that Konsa “have time to coordinate her body movements, d that he has done it. Konsa can have virtually no control over where the ball goes when it hits his leg, rather than deflecting it with his shoe. It is very unlikely that the Independent Key Incidents Panel would consider this an error unless the ball bounces off the foot.
It is legally correct, although many people will disagree with it. If the goal had been awarded, it would probably not have been questioned by anyone other than those with deep knowledge of this area of offside law, which has become unnecessarily complicated in the pursuit of simplicity; It’s the kind of decision where listening to Tony Harrington’s VAR audio recording wouldn’t help.
In March, Newcastle United were disallowed for an Elliot Anderson goal at Nottingham Forest because Sean Longstaff was ruled offside for Felipe’s lack of intent. That was an extremely borderline decision and the VAR should not have interfered. The Independent Key Incidents Panel ruled that it was also a false intrusion.
Felipe was in front of the ball, had a good view of it and made a move to stop a cross but only managed to deflect the ball towards Longstaff with his boot. But this Liverpool incident is different and more akin to the goal Manchester United ruled out against Reading in the FA Cup when Thomas Holmes made an involuntary move to stop a pass.
A similar incident occurred in Germany in February. RB Leipzig’s Yussuf Poulsen was denied an equalizer in the 2-1 defeat at Union Berlin after a defender accidentally passed a ball to an offside Timo Werner in front of the goal. Werner came back to take the ball, it was decided it wasn’t an intentional play and the goal was ruled out.
It was determined that Yussuf Poulsen had not made an intentional play when he slammed the ball behind his back.Bundesliga
At Anfield the referee had to go to the monitor as it was subjective and he had to make the decision on the ‘deliberate play’ aspect.
There was also question of a possible handball from Gakpo in front of goal, but the ball came loose from his chest.
Possible red card: Mings challenges Gakpo
What happened: In first-half stoppage time, Tyrone challenged Ming’s Gakpo for the ball and caught the Liverpool man in the stomach. Referee John Brooks gave the Villa player a yellow card.
VAR decision: No red card.
Tyrone Mings catches Cody Gakpo with his studs going into the chest. BBC
VAR Review: In the Premier League, there tends to be a lot more leniency when it comes to high football boots – unless the challenge requires strength and intensity.
Earlier this season there was no reaction from the VAR when Manchester City striker Erling Haaland caught Crystal Palace’s Joachim Andersen with a high foot. And in late April, Diogo Jota similarly made contact with Tottenham Hotspur boss Oliver Skipp.
In both cases, the Independent Key Incidents Panel concluded that the VAR was correct in not recommending a red card, but the Mings incident was likely a missed red card.
Last month Diogo Jota got away with a yellow card after catching Tottenham’s Oliver Skipp on the side of the headMichael Regan/Getty Images
Haaland and Jota were both explained by the fact that the players were unaware of their opponent’s position, who had his head down. But Mings needs to know where Gakpo is and his boot appears to be poking into his opponent’s chest.
The referee saw that the cleats made contact with the chest and did not feel that force was used in the challenge. Therefore, Harrington decided that the yellow card was an acceptable disciplinary result.
Harrington was also the VAR when the yellow card shown to Crystal Palace goalkeeper Sam Johnstone at Wolverhampton Wanderers was not changed to red, a decision the Independent Match Incidents Panel chalked up as a missed intervention.
The Johnstone incident was more violent as the player lost control in his tackle, but Mings is very lucky that the VAR didn’t see it as a failure to show a red card.
Possible penalty: Luiz challenges Henderson
What happened: In the middle of injury time in the first half, Mohamed Salah passed the ball to Jordan Henderson on the edge of the area and went down after a foul by Douglas Luiz. Harrington started with a check for a possible penalty.
VAR decision: No punishment.
VAR Review: We’ve seen that regularly this season in VAR decisions in the Premier League, with penalties not being imposed if a minor contact resulted in a player going down in a way that didn’t suit them.
Luiz touches Henderson’s ankle but will that cause the Liverpool player to go down like he did? Or does he use this contact to win the penalty?
Douglas Luiz catches Jordan Henderson in the ankle but is that enough for a penalty? BBC
Liverpool fans will point to the penalty awarded to Kevin De Bruyne after minimal contact from Fulham left-back Antonee Robinson earlier in the season – with the difference being that the penalty was awarded by the referee and not VAR. It is an example that consistency with VAR is about the point of intervention and not about making all decisions on the field the same way – as they are judged in the eyes of the referee’s subjectivity.
The only time VAR has intervened with minimal contact to award Brentford a penalty against Newcastle United, the Independent Key Incidents Panel ruled it was an improper intervention.
Possible penalty and red card: Worrall holds Jesus
What happened: In the 54th minute, Gabriel Jesus went down claiming he was pulled back by Joe Worrall. The ball ran to Nottingham Forest goalkeeper Keylor Navas and referee Anthony Taylor rejected requests for a penalty. VAR Neil Swarbrick assessed for a possible penalty and/or red card.
VAR decision: No penalty or red card.
Joe Worrall has his hand on Arsenal striker Gabriel Jesus’ shoulder but it was outside the box and no obvious scoring opportunity. NBC
VAR Review: When making the assessment, the VAR needs to consider two things. The first is the location of the possible foul and alleged retreat. It looks like Worrall is just outside the box as he removes his arm from Jesus, meaning this can’t be a penalty.
That doesn’t rule out the possible role of VAR. If he thinks the defender has denied a clear scoring opportunity, he could still recommend a red card – which would result in Arsenal’s free-kick on the edge of the box. However, there is no certainty that Jesus could have taken and controlled Ben White’s pass, let alone had a clear scoring opportunity, hence no red card.
If the VAR assumed the contact was within range, the question still remains of Jesus theatrically going to the ground and throwing his arms in the air. This is always taken into account in a VAR intervention. Is Worrall just resting his hand on the attacker’s shoulder, or is he actually dragging his opponent as well?
The Arsenal forward was subsequently banned for dissent rather than simulation.
Possible offside position: Lanzini in front of the goal
What happened: West Ham secured the points in the 94th minute when Lucas Paqueta set up Manuel Lanzini for a shot from close range. However, there was a possible offside against Lanzini at the beginning of the change.
VAR decision: goal scores.
VAR Review: To the naked eye, offside seemed impossible, but it came down to two things: the angle of the camera and shoe lift, and the level of tolerance within that offside technology.
Due to inaccuracies within the system, around the point of kick and the representation of body position, there is a tolerance of 5cm to give the attacker confidence when in doubt – and that meant the goal was able to go through.
With the naked eye, there seemed to be a reason for an offside against Manuel Lanzini.NBC
If it’s that close and the attacker’s and defender’s offside lines touch or overlap, the defender will only see a single green line.
It is likely that in the older system, without a level of tolerance, this would have been an offside.
It was VAR’s second offside decision in West Ham United’s favor as Jarrod Bowen was ruled offside for his side’s second goal. The assistant gave the goal, confirmed by the VAR.
Possible handball: Mahrez in front of Alvarez goal
What happened: City thought they had scored a second goal in the 71st minute when Riyad Mahrez brought on Julian Alvarez to score, but there was a hint of a possible handball leading up.
VAR decision: Gate not recognized.
VAR Review: An easy decision for VAR John Brooks and possibly the quickest review of pitch control by referee Michael Oliver.
Mahrez bent into the ball very clearly and controlled it with his arm before creating the goal.
Mahrez wasn’t the scorer, but as the handball in the attacking phase is an intentional act, it’s an offence. It was the right decision not to recognize the goal.
Riyah Mahrez controls the ball with his arm before setting up Julian Alvarez to score.BBC
Possible offside: Ward in front of goal
What happened: Crystal Palace equalized in the 83rd minute when Joel Ward scored, but was he offside after the ball went around the box?
VAR decision: goal scores.
VAR Review: When Michael Olise executed the free-kick, Ward and the rest of the Palace attack found themselves in an offside position. The ball would therefore have to be touched by another Palace player to trigger a new offside phase.
Joel Ward is in an onside position as Michael Olise takes the free kick. BBC
The ball missed Palace’s Jean-Philippe Mateta, then deflected off Fulham defender Antonee Robinson and ran to Ward.
If the ball had touched Mateta first before Robinson, Ward would have been offside. This was not the case, however, and an offside condition only arises from any pass or touch by an attacking player and not a defender.
The ball is deflected off Fulham’s Antonee Robinson but that doesn’t start a new phase of offside.BBC
Premier League and PGMOL information was used in this story.