VAR in the Premier: Eze disallowed, Senesi, ¿red card? Controversies and analysis.

VAR: The Weekly Debate in the Premier League

Every weekend, the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) generates controversy in the Premier League. We analyze the key decisions, the protocol, and the rules of the game to better understand these controversial plays. This week, we reviewed several key plays: Eberechi Eze’s disallowed goal for Crystal Palace against Chelsea, Marcos Senesi’s potential red card in the Liverpool vs. Bournemouth match, and Manchester United’s late penalty claim against Arsenal.

Chelsea 0-0 Crystal Palace

Goal disallowed: Guéhi too close to the wall. Eberechi Eze scored a free kick for Crystal Palace in the 13th minute. However, VAR, James Bell, detected an infringement in the wall and referee Darren England reviewed the play.VAR Decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR Analysis: The law states that attackers must be one meter away from the defensive wall. Although this rule has existed since 2019, VAR had never before intervened in a similar situation. This time, Crystal Palace was the unlucky team. The referee considered that Marc Guéhi was too close to the barrier. The correct decision, but questionable for VAR. In January, at the same stadium, AFC Bournemouth manager Andoni Iraola complained that a Chelsea free kick, which resulted in a 2-2 draw, was not disallowed. Marc Cucurella moved near the wall, but the goal stood. With VAR, the decision is based on the impact rather than the strict application of the rule. Many would argue that, since Guéhi pushed Caicedo, this should be considered a valid intervention. However, it also seems like an exaggeration.

The VAR, who has gone through a dedicated training program, was appointed for his first match on matchday 29 of last season and is considered one of the most promising in the system. This was Bell’s tenth match, so since that debut there has only been one matchday in which he has not been selected. Undoubtedly, there will be a deep discussion this week in group training about this type of situation.Possible penalty: Sánchez’s foul on Guéhi.

Palace had a throw-in in stoppage time of the first half and sent a long ball into the area towards Guéhi. Goalkeeper Sánchez came out to challenge for the ball and made contact with the Palace player’s head. Should a penalty have been awarded to Palace?

VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Analysis: Did Guehi get to the ball first and was hit by the goalkeeper, or did the two players play the ball simultaneously and Guehi was brought down as a result? And how much contact was there anyway? The VAR’s judgment would be guided primarily by the way Sánchez made the challenge; as it was not reckless, a regular attempt to play the ball is unlikely to result in a VAR intervention. There are similarities to an Arsenal penalty claim in their 1-0 defeat to Inter Milan in the UEFA Champions League last season, although in that case there was much more contact from Yann Sommer with Mikel Merino’s head. That was also not given via VAR.

VAR Analysis: Ayari does not touch the ball before making contact with King’s foot, so there is clearly a penalty case.Verdict: Is this clear enough to award a penalty through a VAR intervention? Probably not, but there is no doubt that it would have remained a penalty if the referee had awarded it, as with Cunha. This type of incident is always a matter of impact, and VAR felt there wasn’t enough to change the decision on the field. Overall, that seems to be in line with the Premier League threshold.

Nottingham Forest 3-1 Brentford

Possible penalty: Milambo’s handball.

Elliot Anderson sent a free kick into the area from the left wing, which hit Brentford’s Antoni Milambo. The ball went to corner, and a penalty was requested for Forest. It was reviewed by VAR, Andy Madley.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: Did Milambo move his arm towards the ball? Or is it a natural movement when trying to deflect it with his right boot?Verdict: The angles available to VAR were not good, which always makes an intervention less likely. The referee probably didn’t have a good view either, and was on the opposite side of the field to the assistant. There is not enough evidence in the images to be sure that there was a handball infringement.Possible penalty cancellation: Sangaré’s handball. Brentford were awarded a penalty in the 76th minute when the ball hit Ibrahim Sangaré’s arm, but should VAR have intervened?VAR Decision: Penalty validated, scored by Thiago.VAR Analysis: The first handball penalty of the season came in the first matchday, after only nine were awarded in the entire previous season. The high arm movement of Sangaré towards a high ball convinced referee Peter Bankes that it was a deliberate act.Verdict: With the Premier League’s lenient interpretation of handballs, Sangaré can probably consider himself unlucky, as another referee may consider the contact a natural and accidental movement (while he wasn’t looking at the ball), and VAR wouldn’t have gotten involved. But as soon as this has been given on the field, it’s unlikely to be overturned.

Tottenham 3-0 Burnley

Possible penalty: Porro’s foul on Anthony. Kyle Walker played a pass into the area in front of Jaidon Anthony. Pedro Porro was running backwards and collided with the Burnley attacker, but referee Michael Oliver was not interested in a penalty. There was a quick VAR review, Neil Davies.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: There was contact between the two players, but since the ball was not within playing distance, referees usually look for a very clear foul away from the ball if they are going to call a penalty.Verdict: Porro’s tackle was clumsy, and he probably knew what he was doing when he collided with Anthony. But VAR hasn’t gotten involved in situations like this.Possible penalty: Saliba’s foul on Cunha. Manchester United were looking for a late equalizer when Matthijs de Ligt played the ball towards the goal. Matheus Cunha took possession and appealed for a penalty after being brought down from behind by William Saliba. Referee Simon Hooper let play continue and VAR, Paul Tierney, reviewed it.VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Analysis: It’s an incident that has divided opinion and will depend on how you look at the way the two players move. Saliba’s tackle appeared to be more of a block towards the opponent, while Cunha was moving backwards. However, it was Cunha who was taking possession of the ball, and he might have had the opportunity to control and turn if Saliba hadn’t made contact and caused the attacker to fall.Verdict: It’s a challenge that’s open to interpretation, and VAR cleared it quickly. It’s one of those incidents that needs to be given by the referee, and whatever they decided on the field will be supported.

Brighton 1-1 Fulham

Possible penalty: Ayari’s foul on King. Josh King had the ball inside the area in the 64th minute when he was brought down by Yasin Ayari. Referee Sam Barrott allowed play to continue and VAR, Matt Donohue, reviewed a possible penalty.VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Analysis: Ayari does not touch the ball before making contact with King’s foot, so there is clearly a penalty case.Verdict: Is this clear enough to award a penalty through a VAR intervention? Probably not, but there is no doubt that it would have remained a penalty if the referee had awarded it, as with Cunha. This type of incident is always a matter of impact, and VAR felt there wasn’t enough to change the decision on the field. Overall, that seems to be in line with the Premier League threshold.

Nottingham Forest 3-1 Brentford

Possible penalty: Milambo’s handball.

Elliot Anderson sent a free kick into the area from the left wing, which hit Brentford’s Antoni Milambo. The ball went to corner, and a penalty was requested for Forest. It was reviewed by VAR, Andy Madley.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: Did Milambo move his arm towards the ball? Or is it a natural movement when trying to deflect it with his right boot?Verdict: The angles available to VAR were not good, which always makes an intervention less likely. The referee probably didn’t have a good view either, and was on the opposite side of the field to the assistant. There is not enough evidence in the images to be sure that there was a handball infraction.Possible penalty cancellation: Sangaré’s handball. Brentford were awarded a penalty in the 76th minute when the ball hit Ibrahim Sangaré’s arm, but should VAR have intervened?VAR Decision: Penalty validated, scored by Thiago.VAR Analysis: The first handball penalty of the season arrived on the first matchday, after only nine were awarded in the entire previous season. Sangaré’s high arm movement towards a high ball convinced referee Peter Bankes that it was a deliberate act.Verdict: With the Premier League’s lenient interpretation of handballs, Sangaré can probably consider himself unlucky, as another referee may consider the contact a natural and accidental movement (while he wasn’t looking at the ball), and VAR would not have gotten involved. But as soon as this has been given on the field, it is unlikely to be overturned.

Tottenham 3-0 Burnley

Possible penalty: Porro’s foul on Anthony. Kyle Walker played a pass into the area in front of Jaidon Anthony. Pedro Porro was running backwards and collided with the Burnley attacker, but referee Michael Oliver was not interested in a penalty. There was a quick VAR review, Neil Davies.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: There was contact between the two players, but since the ball was not within playing distance, referees usually look for a very clear foul away from the ball if they are going to call a penalty.Verdict: Porro’s tackle was clumsy, and he probably knew what he was doing when he collided with Anthony. But VAR hasn’t gotten involved in situations like this.

Verdict: As it looked like Sánchez may have touched the ball at almost the same time as Guehi, which is an important influence on a VAR decision. It would have been a big surprise for VAR to get involved in this.

Liverpool 4-2 Bournemouth

Possible red card: DOGSO (Denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity) for Senesi. In the 13th minute, Liverpool was attacking when Mohamed Salah tried to pass the ball to Hugo Ekitike. Bournemouth defender Marcos Senesi intercepted the pass, but appeared to commit a handball that prevented the striker from breaking away towards the goal. Referee Anthony Taylor didn’t see it and, in fact, whistled for a handball against Cody Gakpo a few seconds later. VAR, Michael Oliver, considered a possible red card for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO) against Senesi.VAR Decision: No red card.

VAR Analysis: The ball was in contact with Senesi’s arm twice. The first time, when it bounced off his thigh and onto his arm, which was in an expected position. And then, when Senesi made a deliberate sweep to take the ball away from Ekitike. Oliver was too preoccupied with the first touch on the arm, which was clearly accidental and would not be considered DOGSO, and did not notice the actual second hand for the foul.Verdict: The incident was resolved too quickly, and Oliver only considered the first touch of the arm. This was clearly incorrect, as Senesi then deliberately hit the ball from Ekitike’s run. DOGSO on the halfway line is rare, but not unheard of: Arsenal’s Myles Lewis-Skelly was sent off against West Ham United last season via VAR intervention. Senesi should have been shown the red card; only Liverpool’s two late goals to secure the win prevented this from being a bigger talking point. There would be a question about a possible defender covering, but nothing more than that. There should have been a VAR intervention, as Ekitike was most likely to take control of the ball and be in the goal.

Man United 0-1 Arsenal

Possible penalty: Saliba’s foul on Cunha. Manchester United were looking for a late equalizer when Matthijs de Ligt played the ball towards the goal. Matheus Cunha took possession and appealed for a penalty after being brought down from behind by William Saliba. Referee Simon Hooper let play continue and VAR, Paul Tierney, reviewed it.VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Analysis: It’s an incident that has divided opinion and will depend on how you look at the way the two players move. Saliba’s tackle appeared to be more of a block towards the opponent, while Cunha was moving backwards. However, it was Cunha who was taking possession of the ball, and he might have had the opportunity to control and turn if Saliba hadn’t made contact and caused the attacker to fall.Verdict: It’s a challenge that’s open to interpretation, and VAR cleared it quickly. It’s one of those incidents that needs to be given by the referee, and whatever they decided on the field will be supported.

Brighton 1-1 Fulham

Possible penalty: Ayari’s foul on King. Josh King had the ball inside the area in the 64th minute when he was brought down by Yasin Ayari. Referee Sam Barrott allowed play to continue and VAR, Matt Donohue, reviewed a possible penalty.VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Analysis: Ayari does not touch the ball before making contact with King’s foot, so there is clearly a penalty case.Verdict: Is this clear enough to award a penalty through a VAR intervention? Probably not, but there is no doubt that it would have remained a penalty if the referee had awarded it, as with Cunha. This type of incident is always a matter of impact, and VAR felt there wasn’t enough to change the decision on the field. Overall, that seems to be in line with the Premier League threshold.

Nottingham Forest 3-1 Brentford

Possible penalty: Milambo’s handball.

Elliot Anderson sent a free kick into the area from the left wing, which hit Brentford’s Antoni Milambo. The ball went to corner, and a penalty was requested for Forest. It was reviewed by VAR, Andy Madley.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: Did Milambo move his arm towards the ball? Or is it a natural movement when trying to deflect it with his right boot?Verdict: The angles available to VAR were not good, which always makes an intervention less likely. The referee probably didn’t have a good view either, and was on the opposite side of the field to the assistant. There is not enough evidence in the images to be sure that there was a handball infraction.Possible penalty cancellation: Sangaré’s handball. Brentford were awarded a penalty in the 76th minute when the ball hit Ibrahim Sangaré’s arm, but should VAR have intervened?VAR Decision: Penalty validated, scored by Thiago.VAR Analysis: The first handball penalty of the season arrived on the first matchday, after only nine were awarded in the entire previous season. Sangaré’s high arm movement towards a high ball convinced referee Peter Bankes that it was a deliberate act.Verdict: With the Premier League’s lenient interpretation of handballs, Sangaré can probably consider himself unlucky, as another referee may consider the contact a natural and accidental movement (while he wasn’t looking at the ball), and VAR would not have gotten involved. But as soon as this has been given on the field, it is unlikely to be overturned.

Tottenham 3-0 Burnley

Possible penalty: Porro’s foul on Anthony. Kyle Walker played a pass into the area in front of Jaidon Anthony. Pedro Porro was running backwards and collided with the Burnley attacker, but referee Michael Oliver was not interested in a penalty. There was a quick VAR review, Neil Davies.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: There was contact between the two players, but since the ball was not within playing distance, referees usually look for a very clear foul away from the ball if they are going to call a penalty.Verdict: Porro’s tackle was clumsy, and he probably knew what he was doing when he collided with Anthony. But VAR hasn’t gotten involved in situations like this.

VAR Analysis: It’s an incident that has divided opinion and will depend on how you look at the way the two players move. Saliba’s tackle seemed more like a blocking action towards the opponent, while Cunha was moving backwards. However, it was Cunha who was taking possession of the ball, and he might have had the opportunity to control and turn if Saliba hadn’t made contact and caused the attacker to fall.Verdict: It’s a challenge that’s open to interpretation, and VAR cleared it quickly. It’s one of those incidents that needs to be given by the referee, and whatever they decided on the field will be supported.

Brighton 1-1 Fulham

Possible penalty: Ayari’s foul on King. Josh King had the ball inside the area in the 64th minute when he was brought down by Yasin Ayari. Referee Sam Barrott allowed play to continue and VAR, Matt Donohue, reviewed a possible penalty.VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Analysis: Ayari does not touch the ball before making contact with King’s foot, so there is clearly a penalty case.Verdict: Is this clear enough to award a penalty through a VAR intervention? Probably not, but there is no doubt that it would have remained a penalty if the referee had awarded it, as with Cunha. This type of incident is always a matter of impact, and VAR felt there wasn’t enough to change the decision on the field. Overall, that seems to be in line with the Premier League threshold.

Nottingham Forest 3-1 Brentford

Possible penalty: Milambo’s handball.

Elliot Anderson sent a free kick into the area from the left wing, which hit Brentford’s Antoni Milambo. The ball went to corner, and a penalty was requested for Forest. It was reviewed by VAR, Andy Madley.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: Did Milambo move his arm towards the ball? Or is it a natural movement when trying to deflect it with his right boot?Verdict: The angles available to VAR were not good, which always makes an intervention less likely. The referee probably didn’t have a good view either, and was on the opposite side of the field to the assistant. There is not enough evidence in the images to be sure that there was a handball infringement.Possible penalty cancellation: Sangaré’s handball. Brentford were awarded a penalty in the 76th minute when the ball hit Ibrahim Sangaré’s arm, but should VAR have intervened?VAR Decision: Penalty validated, scored by Thiago.VAR Analysis: The first handball penalty of the season arrived on the first matchday, after only nine were awarded in the entire previous season. Sangaré’s high arm movement towards a high ball convinced referee Peter Bankes that it was a deliberate act.Verdict: With the Premier League’s lenient interpretation of handballs, Sangaré can probably consider himself unlucky, as another referee may consider the contact a natural and accidental movement (while he wasn’t looking at the ball), and VAR would not have gotten involved. But as soon as this has been given on the field, it is unlikely to be overturned.

Tottenham 3-0 Burnley

Possible penalty: Porro’s foul on Anthony. Kyle Walker played a pass into the area in front of Jaidon Anthony. Pedro Porro was running backwards and collided with the Burnley attacker, but referee Michael Oliver was not interested in a penalty. There was a quick VAR review, Neil Davies.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: There was contact between the two players, but since the ball was not within playing distance, referees usually look for a very clear foul away from the ball if they are going to call a penalty.Verdict: Porro’s tackle was clumsy, and he probably knew what he was doing when he collided with Anthony. But VAR hasn’t gotten involved in situations like this.

Verdict: As it looked like Sánchez may have touched the ball at almost the same time as Guehi, which is an important influence on a VAR decision. It would have been a big surprise for VAR to get involved in this.

Liverpool 4-2 Bournemouth

Possible red card: DOGSO (Denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity) for Senesi. In the 13th minute, Liverpool was attacking when Mohamed Salah tried to pass the ball to Hugo Ekitike. Bournemouth defender Marcos Senesi intercepted the pass, but appeared to commit a handball that prevented the striker from breaking away towards the goal. Referee Anthony Taylor didn’t see it and, in fact, whistled for a handball against Cody Gakpo a few seconds later. VAR, Michael Oliver, considered a possible red card for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO) against Senesi.VAR Decision: No red card.

VAR Analysis: The ball was in contact with Senesi’s arm twice. The first time, when it bounced off his thigh and onto his arm, which was in an expected position. And then, when Senesi made a deliberate sweep to take the ball away from Ekitike. Oliver was too preoccupied with the first touch on the arm, which was clearly accidental and would not be considered DOGSO, and did not notice the actual second hand for the foul.Verdict: The incident was resolved too quickly, and Oliver only considered the first touch of the arm. This was clearly incorrect, as Senesi then deliberately hit the ball from Ekitike’s run. DOGSO on the halfway line is rare, but not unheard of: Arsenal’s Myles Lewis-Skelly was sent off against West Ham United last season via VAR intervention. Senesi should have been shown the red card; only Liverpool’s two late goals to secure the win prevented this from being a bigger talking point. There would be a question about a possible defender covering, but nothing more than that. There should have been a VAR intervention, as Ekitike was most likely to take control of the ball and be in the goal.

Man United 0-1 Arsenal

Possible penalty: Saliba’s foul on Cunha. Manchester United were looking for a late equalizer when Matthijs de Ligt played the ball towards the goal. Matheus Cunha took possession and appealed for a penalty after being brought down from behind by William Saliba. Referee Simon Hooper let play continue and VAR, Paul Tierney, reviewed it.VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Analysis: It’s an incident that has divided opinion and will depend on how you look at the way the two players move. Saliba’s tackle appeared to be more of a block towards the opponent, while Cunha was moving backwards. However, it was Cunha who was taking possession of the ball, and he might have had the opportunity to control and turn if Saliba hadn’t made contact and caused the attacker to fall.Verdict: It’s a challenge that’s open to interpretation, and VAR cleared it quickly. It’s one of those incidents that needs to be given by the referee, and whatever they decided on the field will be supported.

Brighton 1-1 Fulham

Possible penalty: Ayari’s foul on King. Josh King had the ball inside the area in the 64th minute when he was brought down by Yasin Ayari. Referee Sam Barrott allowed play to continue and VAR, Matt Donohue, reviewed a possible penalty.VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Analysis: Ayari does not touch the ball before making contact with King’s foot, so there is clearly a penalty case.Verdict: Is this clear enough to award a penalty through a VAR intervention? Probably not, but there is no doubt that it would have remained a penalty if the referee had awarded it, as with Cunha. This type of incident is always a matter of impact, and VAR felt there wasn’t enough to change the decision on the field. Overall, that seems to be in line with the Premier League threshold.

Nottingham Forest 3-1 Brentford

Possible penalty: Milambo’s handball.

Elliot Anderson sent a free kick into the area from the left wing, which hit Brentford’s Antoni Milambo. The ball went to corner, and a penalty was requested for Forest. It was reviewed by VAR, Andy Madley.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: Did Milambo move his arm towards the ball? Or is it a natural movement when trying to deflect it with his right boot?Verdict: The angles available to VAR were not good, which always makes an intervention less likely. The referee probably didn’t have a good view either, and was on the opposite side of the field to the assistant. There is not enough evidence in the images to be sure that there was a handball infraction.Possible penalty cancellation: Sangaré’s handball. Brentford were awarded a penalty in the 76th minute when the ball hit Ibrahim Sangaré’s arm, but should VAR have intervened?VAR Decision: Penalty validated, scored by Thiago.VAR Analysis: The first handball penalty of the season arrived on the first matchday, after only nine were awarded in the entire previous season. Sangaré’s high arm movement towards a high ball convinced referee Peter Bankes that it was a deliberate act.Verdict: With the Premier League’s lenient interpretation of handballs, Sangaré can probably consider himself unlucky, as another referee may consider the contact a natural and accidental movement (while he wasn’t looking at the ball), and VAR would not have gotten involved. But as soon as this has been given on the field, it is unlikely to be overturned.

Tottenham 3-0 Burnley

Possible penalty: Porro’s foul on Anthony. Kyle Walker played a pass into the area in front of Jaidon Anthony. Pedro Porro was running backwards and collided with the Burnley attacker, but referee Michael Oliver was not interested in a penalty. There was a quick VAR review, Neil Davies.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: There was contact between the two players, but since the ball was not within playing distance, referees usually look for a very clear foul away from the ball if they are going to call a penalty.Verdict: Porro’s tackle was clumsy, and he probably knew what he was doing when he collided with Anthony. But VAR hasn’t gotten involved in situations like this.

Verdict: As it looked like Sánchez may have touched the ball at almost the same time as Guehi, which is an important influence on a VAR decision. It would have been a big surprise for VAR to get involved in this.

Liverpool 4-2 Bournemouth

Possible red card: DOGSO (Denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity) for Senesi. In the 13th minute, Liverpool was attacking when Mohamed Salah tried to pass the ball to Hugo Ekitike. Bournemouth defender Marcos Senesi intercepted the pass, but appeared to commit a handball that prevented the striker from breaking away towards the goal. Referee Anthony Taylor didn’t see it and, in fact, whistled for a handball against Cody Gakpo a few seconds later. VAR, Michael Oliver, considered a possible red card for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO) against Senesi.VAR Decision: No red card.

VAR Analysis: The ball was in contact with Senesi’s arm twice. The first time, when it bounced off his thigh and onto his arm, which was in an expected position. And then, when Senesi made a deliberate sweep to take the ball away from Ekitike. Oliver was too preoccupied with the first touch on the arm, which was clearly accidental and would not be considered DOGSO, and did not notice the actual second hand for the foul.Verdict: The incident was resolved too quickly, and Oliver only considered the first touch of the arm. This was clearly incorrect, as Senesi then deliberately hit the ball from Ekitike’s run. DOGSO on the halfway line is rare, but not unheard of: Arsenal’s Myles Lewis-Skelly was sent off against West Ham United last season via VAR intervention. Senesi should have been shown the red card; only Liverpool’s two late goals to secure the win prevented this from being a bigger talking point. There would be a question about a possible defender covering, but nothing more than that. There should have been a VAR intervention, as Ekitike was most likely to take control of the ball and be in the goal.

Man United 0-1 Arsenal

Possible penalty: Saliba’s foul on Cunha. Manchester United were looking for a late equalizer when Matthijs de Ligt played the ball towards the goal. Matheus Cunha took possession and appealed for a penalty after being brought down from behind by William Saliba. Referee Simon Hooper let play continue and VAR, Paul Tierney, reviewed it.VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Analysis: It’s an incident that has divided opinion and will depend on how you look at the way the two players move. Saliba’s tackle appeared to be more of a block towards the opponent, while Cunha was moving backwards. However, it was Cunha who was taking possession of the ball, and he might have had the opportunity to control and turn if Saliba hadn’t made contact and caused the attacker to fall.Verdict: It’s a challenge that’s open to interpretation, and VAR cleared it quickly. It’s one of those incidents that needs to be given by the referee, and whatever they decided on the field will be supported.

Brighton 1-1 Fulham

Possible penalty: Ayari’s foul on King. Josh King had the ball inside the area in the 64th minute when he was brought down by Yasin Ayari. Referee Sam Barrott allowed play to continue and VAR, Matt Donohue, reviewed a possible penalty.VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Analysis: Ayari does not touch the ball before making contact with King’s foot, so there is clearly a penalty case.Verdict: Is this clear enough to award a penalty through a VAR intervention? Probably not, but there is no doubt that it would have remained a penalty if the referee had awarded it, as with Cunha. This type of incident is always a matter of impact, and VAR felt there wasn’t enough to change the decision on the field. Overall, that seems to be in line with the Premier League threshold.

Nottingham Forest 3-1 Brentford

Possible penalty: Milambo’s handball.

Elliot Anderson sent a free kick into the area from the left wing, which hit Brentford’s Antoni Milambo. The ball went to corner, and a penalty was requested for Forest. It was reviewed by VAR, Andy Madley.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: Did Milambo move his arm towards the ball? Or is it a natural movement when trying to deflect it with his right boot?Verdict: The angles available to VAR were not good, which always makes an intervention less likely. The referee probably didn’t have a good view either, and was on the opposite side of the field to the assistant. There is not enough evidence in the images to be sure that there was a handball infraction.Possible penalty cancellation: Sangaré’s handball. Brentford were awarded a penalty in the 76th minute when the ball hit Ibrahim Sangaré’s arm, but should VAR have intervened?VAR Decision: Penalty validated, scored by Thiago.VAR Analysis: The first handball penalty of the season arrived on the first matchday, after only nine were awarded in the entire previous season. Sangaré’s high arm movement towards a high ball convinced referee Peter Bankes that it was a deliberate act.Verdict: With the Premier League’s lenient interpretation of handballs, Sangaré can probably consider himself unlucky, as another referee may consider the contact a natural and accidental movement (while he wasn’t looking at the ball), and VAR would not have gotten involved. But as soon as this has been given on the field, it is unlikely to be overturned.

Tottenham 3-0 Burnley

Possible penalty: Porro’s foul on Anthony. Kyle Walker played a pass into the area in front of Jaidon Anthony. Pedro Porro was running backwards and collided with the Burnley attacker, but referee Michael Oliver was not interested in a penalty. There was a quick VAR review, Neil Davies.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: There was contact between the two players, but since the ball was not within playing distance, referees usually look for a very clear foul away from the ball if they are going to call a penalty.Verdict: Porro’s tackle was clumsy, and he probably knew what he was doing when he collided with Anthony. But VAR hasn’t gotten involved in situations like this.

VAR Analysis: It’s an incident that has divided opinion and will depend on how you look at the way the two players move. Saliba’s tackle seemed more like a blocking action towards the opponent, while Cunha was moving backwards. However, it was Cunha who was taking possession of the ball, and he might have had the opportunity to control and turn if Saliba hadn’t made contact and caused the attacker to fall.Verdict: It’s a challenge that’s open to interpretation, and VAR cleared it quickly. It’s one of those incidents that needs to be given by the referee, and whatever they decided on the field will be supported.

Brighton 1-1 Fulham

Possible penalty: Ayari’s foul on King. Josh King had the ball inside the area in the 64th minute when he was brought down by Yasin Ayari. Referee Sam Barrott allowed play to continue and VAR, Matt Donohue, reviewed a possible penalty.VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Analysis: Ayari does not touch the ball before making contact with King’s foot, so there is clearly a penalty case.Verdict: Is this clear enough to award a penalty through a VAR intervention? Probably not, but there is no doubt that it would have remained a penalty if the referee had awarded it, as with Cunha. This type of incident is always a matter of impact, and VAR felt there wasn’t enough to change the decision on the field. Overall, that seems to be in line with the Premier League threshold.

Nottingham Forest 3-1 Brentford

Possible penalty: Milambo’s handball.

Elliot Anderson sent a free kick into the area from the left wing, which hit Brentford’s Antoni Milambo. The ball went to corner, and a penalty was requested for Forest. It was reviewed by VAR, Andy Madley.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: Did Milambo move his arm towards the ball? Or is it a natural movement when trying to deflect it with his right boot?Verdict: The angles available to VAR were not good, which always makes an intervention less likely. The referee probably didn’t have a good view either, and was on the opposite side of the field to the assistant. There is not enough evidence in the images to be sure that there was a handball infringement.Possible penalty cancellation: Sangaré’s handball. Brentford were awarded a penalty in the 76th minute when the ball hit Ibrahim Sangaré’s arm, but should VAR have intervened?VAR Decision: Penalty validated, scored by Thiago.VAR Analysis: The first handball penalty of the season arrived on the first matchday, after only nine were awarded in the entire previous season. Sangaré’s high arm movement towards a high ball convinced referee Peter Bankes that it was a deliberate act.Verdict: With the Premier League’s lenient interpretation of handballs, Sangaré can probably consider himself unlucky, as another referee may consider the contact a natural and accidental movement (while he wasn’t looking at the ball), and VAR would not have gotten involved. But as soon as this has been given on the field, it is unlikely to be overturned.

Tottenham 3-0 Burnley

Possible penalty: Porro’s foul on Anthony. Kyle Walker played a pass into the area in front of Jaidon Anthony. Pedro Porro was running backwards and collided with the Burnley attacker, but referee Michael Oliver was not interested in a penalty. There was a quick VAR review, Neil Davies.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: There was contact between the two players, but since the ball was not within playing distance, referees usually look for a very clear foul away from the ball if they are going to call a penalty.Verdict: Porro’s tackle was clumsy, and he probably knew what he was doing when he collided with Anthony. But VAR hasn’t gotten involved in situations like this.

Verdict: As it looked like Sánchez may have touched the ball at almost the same time as Guehi, which is an important influence on a VAR decision. It would have been a big surprise for VAR to get involved in this.

Liverpool 4-2 Bournemouth

Possible red card: DOGSO (Denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity) for Senesi. In the 13th minute, Liverpool was attacking when Mohamed Salah tried to pass the ball to Hugo Ekitike. Bournemouth defender Marcos Senesi intercepted the pass, but appeared to commit a handball that prevented the striker from breaking away towards the goal. Referee Anthony Taylor didn’t see it and, in fact, whistled for a handball against Cody Gakpo a few seconds later. VAR, Michael Oliver, considered a possible red card for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO) against Senesi.VAR Decision: No red card.

VAR Analysis: The ball was in contact with Senesi’s arm twice. The first time, when it bounced off his thigh and onto his arm, which was in an expected position. And then, when Senesi made a deliberate sweep to take the ball away from Ekitike. Oliver was too preoccupied with the first touch on the arm, which was clearly accidental and would not be considered DOGSO, and did not notice the actual second hand for the foul.Verdict: The incident was resolved too quickly, and Oliver only considered the first touch of the arm. This was clearly incorrect, as Senesi then deliberately hit the ball from Ekitike’s run. DOGSO on the halfway line is rare, but not unheard of: Arsenal’s Myles Lewis-Skelly was sent off against West Ham United last season via VAR intervention. Senesi should have been shown the red card; only Liverpool’s two late goals to secure the win prevented this from being a bigger talking point. There would be a question about a possible defender covering, but nothing more than that. There should have been a VAR intervention, as Ekitike was most likely to take control of the ball and be in the goal.

Man United 0-1 Arsenal

Possible penalty: Saliba’s foul on Cunha. Manchester United were looking for a late equalizer when Matthijs de Ligt played the ball towards the goal. Matheus Cunha took possession and appealed for a penalty after being brought down from behind by William Saliba. Referee Simon Hooper let play continue and VAR, Paul Tierney, reviewed it.VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Analysis: It’s an incident that has divided opinion and will depend on how you look at the way the two players move. Saliba’s tackle appeared to be more of a block towards the opponent, while Cunha was moving backwards. However, it was Cunha who was taking possession of the ball, and he might have had the opportunity to control and turn if Saliba hadn’t made contact and caused the attacker to fall.Verdict: It’s a challenge that’s open to interpretation, and VAR cleared it quickly. It’s one of those incidents that needs to be given by the referee, and whatever they decided on the field will be supported.

Brighton 1-1 Fulham

Possible penalty: Ayari’s foul on King. Josh King had the ball inside the area in the 64th minute when he was brought down by Yasin Ayari. Referee Sam Barrott allowed play to continue and VAR, Matt Donohue, reviewed a possible penalty.VAR Decision: No penalty.

VAR Analysis: Ayari does not touch the ball before making contact with King’s foot, so there is clearly a penalty case.Verdict: Is this clear enough to award a penalty through a VAR intervention? Probably not, but there is no doubt that it would have remained a penalty if the referee had awarded it, as with Cunha. This type of incident is always a matter of impact, and VAR felt there wasn’t enough to change the decision on the field. Overall, that seems to be in line with the Premier League threshold.

Nottingham Forest 3-1 Brentford

Possible penalty: Milambo’s handball.

Elliot Anderson sent a free kick into the area from the left wing, which hit Brentford’s Antoni Milambo. The ball went to corner, and a penalty was requested for Forest. It was reviewed by VAR, Andy Madley.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: Did Milambo move his arm towards the ball? Or is it a natural movement when trying to deflect it with his right boot?Verdict: The angles available to VAR were not good, which always makes an intervention less likely. The referee probably didn’t have a good view either, and was on the opposite side of the field to the assistant. There is not enough evidence in the images to be sure that there was a handball infraction.Possible penalty cancellation: Sangaré’s handball. Brentford were awarded a penalty in the 76th minute when the ball hit Ibrahim Sangaré’s arm, but should VAR have intervened?VAR Decision: Penalty validated, scored by Thiago.VAR Analysis: The first handball penalty of the season arrived on the first matchday, after only nine were awarded in the entire previous season. Sangaré’s high arm movement towards a high ball convinced referee Peter Bankes that it was a deliberate act.Verdict: With the Premier League’s lenient interpretation of handballs, Sangaré can probably consider himself unlucky, as another referee may consider the contact a natural and accidental movement (while he wasn’t looking at the ball), and VAR would not have gotten involved. But as soon as this has been given on the field, it is unlikely to be overturned.

Tottenham 3-0 Burnley

Possible penalty: Porro’s foul on Anthony. Kyle Walker played a pass into the area in front of Jaidon Anthony. Pedro Porro was running backwards and collided with the Burnley attacker, but referee Michael Oliver was not interested in a penalty. There was a quick VAR review, Neil Davies.VAR Decision: No penalty.VAR Analysis: There was contact between the two players, but since the ball was not within playing distance, referees usually look for a very clear foul away from the ball if they are going to call a penalty.Verdict: Porro’s tackle was clumsy, and he probably knew what he was doing when he collided with Anthony. But VAR hasn’t gotten involved in situations like this.