Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?After each weekend we take a look at the major incidents to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.In this week’s VAR Review: We take a look at how impact is judged in different situations, from Crystal Palace’s penalty claim against Liverpool, to Newcastle United’s spot kick against Everton — not to mention two offside decisions resulting in opposite outcomes.Possible penalty: Holding by Van Dijk on GuéhiWhat happened: Crystal Palace won a corner in the 71st minute. A cross was played to the back post toward Trevoh Chalobah, who saw his improvised flick on goal palmed clear by Alisson. As the players started to move back up the pitch, Palace’s Marc Guéhi appealed for a penalty to referee Simon Hooper, who waved him away. It was unclear at first what Guéhi was complaining about, but he wanted Virgil van Dijk penalised for holding in the box, and it was checked by the VAR, David Coote.VAR decision: No penalty.Virgil van Dijk appears to tug on the arm of Marc Guéhi. BBCVAR review: One of VAR’s biggest problems has been managing expectations. A lot of that comes down to the lack of information given to fans, who have been treated abysmally over the past six seasons. The drip of information is improving, but it’s nowhere near enough.One of the issues those who run the game have had to grapple with is how to get the message across. The simple fact is that no two situations are ever exactly the same; both are judged on the balance of a set of criteria. But when one aspect is offered in explanation, fans understandably apply that to another situation.Referees know that explaining the intricacies of two scenarios puts them in a no-win situation, so instead, we just get a few tweets on an X account that, while better than nothing, lack context.Take this weekend: Van Dijk didn’t concede a penalty for holding in the box because Guéhi wasn’t going to be able to play the ball, yet Newcastle were given a penalty vs. Everton even though Sandro Tonali had no chance of being involved in the play before he was pulled down by James Tarkowski. (More on this later.)The forensic nature of VAR has led to many changes in the way the game is refereed, with pages of guidance to help officials decide when they should get involved.This comes down to one word: impact. It appears only twice in the Laws of the Game, both times in relation to the powers of the referee and not in passages about offences. Yet today, it’s absolutely crucial in determining when the VAR sends the referee to the monitor. “Impact” is important for the referee on the field, too, but it defines the role of the VAR in pretty much every subjective situation.Has holding impacted an attacker from challenging the ball? Has a player in an offside position impacted an opponent?Editor’s Picks2 RelatedYet impact on the play and actions of a player are not completely interconnected. The nature of a challenge can be the overriding factor. (Which we’ll explain in the Tonali example below.)Premier League and PGMOL competition guidance says holding should be “sustained and impactful” and have a “clear impact on the opponent’s opportunity to play or challenge for the ball.” It adds: “where one player clearly holds an opponent and this action clearly impacts the opponent’s movement and/or the ability to play or challenge for the ball [material impact], this action should be penalised.”While Van Dijk was holding Guéhi’s arm, it was deemed to be for only a short time and, crucially, there was no prospect of the Palace player being involved in the passage of play. The touch from Chalobah was always going to send the ball to the Liverpool goalkeeper, so even if Van Dijk hadn’t been holding Guéhi, there was no realistic chance he was going to be able to challenge.If the referee had awarded a penalty, it wouldn’t have been overturned as Van Dijk is clearly holding Guéhi, and there’s a subjective case. But with VAR in the Premier League, a spot kick would be a surprising outcome.And that’s where the whole question about expectation comes back in. When fans see a defender holding an attacking player’s arm, it feels like an unfair advantage is being gained. But in judging the overall impact of Van Dijk’s actions, the VAR isn’t likely to see this as being enough for an intervention.Two weeks ago, West Ham United were adamant they should have been given a penalty against Chelsea when Crysencio Summerville was having his arm held by Wesley Fofana inside the area. The VAR decided the holding by Fofana was only “fleeting,” and not enough to overrule the on-field decision.Wesley Fofana was holding the arm of Crysencio Summerville. BBCSummerville’s penalty claim was stronger than Guéhi’s, as the West Ham player was trying to run onto a pass and the holding could have prevented him from playing it. The Premier League’s Key Match Incidents Panel ruled that should have been awarded by the referee by a vote of 3-2, saying: “Summerville’s wrist is held as he gets away from Fofana, and this impacts his progress towards the ball. The holding starts outside the penalty area and continues into it.” Yet the panel also felt the offence wasn’t clear enough for a VAR intervention, by a vote of 4-1.The votes are unlikely to be so split on Guéhi, and it won’t be seen as an error by the referee or the VAR.The Premier League wants the VAR to operate this way so it doesn’t get involved in trifling examples of holding, allowing the game to flow without too much interruption. That said, other leagues are far more strict on both pulling and soft contact inside the area. The question is whether fans in England are happy with the light touch?Possible penalty: Tarkowski challenge on Tonali What happened: Newcastle won a corner in the 30th minute. It was worked to Jacob Murphy on the edge of the box, who shot wide of the target. During the move, Sandro Tonali went to ground in the box under a challenge from James Tarkowski. Referee Craig Pawson didn’t see any offence, but it was checked for a penalty by the VAR, Chris Kavanagh. VAR decision: Penalty, Anthony Gordon’s effort saved by Jordan Pickford.

VAR review: The Premier League’s Guidance document has a third clause for judging a holding offence, and you’d struggle to find a more obvious example of a “clear (extreme) non-footballing action with impact on the opponent’s movement.”The clause comes into play when there’s no justification for what Tarkowski did. By grabbing Tonali around the collar and literally throwing him to the ground, Tarkowski was so far from a footballing action it would have been impossible for the VAR to ignore it. It was more a wrestling move.It’s precisely the type of challenge where an attacking player’s ability to go for the ball is usurped by the sheer craziness of a defender’s actions.In throwing Tonali to the turf, Tarkowski’s situation can’t be compared with Van Dijk simply holding onto the arm of Guéhi.James Tarkowski conceded a penalty via a VAR review for pulling Sandro Tonali to the ground by his collar. BBCPossible penalty: Burn on Calvert Lewin What happened: Everton wanted a penalty of their own in the 67th minute. Dominic Calvert-Lewin saw his shot saved by Nick Pope, but the Newcastle goalkeeper could only scoop the ball back out into the centre of goal. Calvert-Lewin went down when alongside Dan Burn, and the loose ball fell to Idrissa Gueye, who blazed over the bar. Everton players wanted a penalty, but Pawson insisted it was just a coming together.VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: This caused a lot of frustration among Everton fans, and manager Sean Dyche, who believe the club are getting the thin end of the wedge when it comes to penalties.At first it did look like Burn had prevented Calvert-Lewin from getting a shot on goal, but all was not what it seemed — though there are opposing views.Had Burn made an obvious movement to put himself in the way of Calvert-Lewin to prevent the shot, Everton would have had a much stronger case. But the Newcastle player doesn’t try to place himself in front of the striker, and he’s kicked by Calvert-Lewin in the act of taking the shot.Dominic Calvert-Lewin kicked the leg of Dan Burn, rather than being brought down by a challenge from the Newcastle United defender. Charlotte Wilson/Offside/Offside via Getty ImagesIt looks worse because Burn’s right leg ends up in front of Calvert-Lewin, but that’s because it is dragged across by the Everton player.It’s going to split opinion, as some will believe Calvert-Lewin is prevented from taking a shot. But if it’s going to split opinion, by definition that shouldn’t be for the VAR.Indeed, even if Pawson had pointed to the spot, there’s every chance the VAR would have intervened to tell the referee to cancel it. That has already happened at Goodison Park once this season, when the VAR ruled that Calvert-Lewin had stood on the leg of Brighton & Hove Albion’s Lewis Dunk, rather than the defender having made a challenge. The KMI Panel unanimously supported that intervention and will do the same for the VAR leaving this alone.If Gueye had scored, there would have been a case for the goal to be disallowed for a foul by Calvert-Lewin.Dominic Calvert-Lewin kicked Dan Burn’s leg in front of him, rather than the Newcastle player causing a foul. Matt McNulty/Getty ImagesPossible offside: Merino and Martinelli on Martinelli goalWhat happened: Arsenal took a 2-1 lead in the 68th minute when Gabriel Martinelli was left completely unmarked to nudge a cross from Bukayo Saka into the back of the net, but there was a lengthy check for offside against two players for the VAR, Michael Salisbury. VAR decision: Goal stands.

VAR review: It took two minutes and 40 seconds for the VAR to clear the goal, which is far too long, especially as most of that time appeared to be spent working on the possible offside against the goal scorer.In the end, Martinelli was clearly onside. It’s exactly the kind of situation that semi-automated offside (SAOT) is supposed to help with, when the VAR has to work with multiple angles to try to determine the body position of a player. However, after SAOT was supposed to be introduced in October or November, it now seems more likely it will come in the second half of the season — if it even comes in this campaign at all.A source told ESPN that tests of the new technology by Genius Sports, which won the contract with the Premier League for SAOT, are not going as well as expected, and it won’t be introduced into English football until there’s no risk of errors. Though you have to ask what’s different about the technology in Spain and Italy, where both already have SAOT implemented.Mikel Merino made a movement to the flight of the ball, but this was judged to have had no impact upon the opponent. BBCWhile Martinelli was onside, Mikel Merino wasn’t, though the VAR quickly cleared the Spain international as having no involvement. Merino seemed to make a movement toward the ball as it floated over to the goal scorer. While making an obvious action when in an offside position is usually an offence, we’re back to that word again: impact. The attacker’s movement has to affect an opposition player.Last season, Manchester United had a goal from Scott McTominay disallowed at Fulham when Harry Maguire, who was in an offside position, tried to play the ball from Christian Eriksen as it went through to Alejandro Garnacho to create the goal. Maguire was deemed to have interfered with Rodrigo Muniz, who was in direct competition to make an interception. Had a Southampton player been up with Merino for the header, then he absolutely would have been given offside. Likewise, had a defender been marking Martinelli, there was a stronger case for offside against Merino.Harry Maguire was in a direct duel with an opponent when he was ruled to be offside when trying to play the ball. BBCSo the only question for the VAR was whether Merino had any impact on Aaron Ramsdale. Would the goalkeeper have made an attempt to cut out the cross, or closed down Martinelli sooner, had Merino not been there? It’s a valid question, but with Ramsdale on his line as the cross came over, it’s tough to make a case that there was enough impact for the goal to be disallowed.AFC Bournemouth had a goal disallowed on the field in similar circumstances on Saturday, the difference being that the delivery from Lewis Cook was on target and the ball went directly into the back of the net. Evanilson made a clearer action to head, it was closer to goal and the ball went in — and that creates the impact upon Leicester City goalkeeper Mads Hermansen.Evanilson made a clear move to play a ball which beat the Leicester City goalkeeper and resulted in a goal. BBCPossible penalty: Lemina challenge on Collins What happened: Brentford were on the attack in the 17th minute when Nathan Collins went to ground under a challenge from Mario Lemina. Referee Andy Madley allowed play to go on, but the incident was checked by the VAR, Michael Oliver. VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Bryan Mbeumo.

VAR review: Remarkably, Wolverhampton Wanderers have given away penalties in consecutive gameweeks for pretty much the same offence. Last week, Nélson Semedo had his arm around the neck of Liverpool’s Diogo Jota and referee Anthony Taylor pointed to the spot.Only last weekend Wolves conceded a spot kick in very similar circumstances, when Nelson Semedo pulled down Liverpool’s Diogo Jota. BBCThis weekend, it was Lemina’s turn.As a corner came across, the ball dropped directly into the area Collins was attacking — remember impacting “the opponent’s movement and/or the ability to play or challenge” — but Lemina had his arm on Collins’ neck and shoulder, and as a result, he was free to head the ball away.This time it needed the VAR to get involved to give the spot kick, but it was Groundhog Day for Gary O’Neil.Mario Lemina has his arm around the neck and shoulder of Nathan Collins. BBCPossible penalty: Handball by ZabarnyiWhat happened: The game was in the 23rd minute when Stephy Mavididi tried to play a pass to Jamie Vardy, who was at the far post, and the ball hit the arm of Bournemouth defender Illia Zabarnyi. Leicester City players demanded a penalty, but referee Darren Bond played on. It was checked by the VAR, Stuart Attwell. VAR decision: No penalty. The ball hits the arm of AFC Bournemouth defender Illia Zabarnyi. NBCVAR review: Here’s a fact for you: There hasn’t been a single penalty for handball in the Premier League this season. Let’s compare that to the other top European competitions: Serie A has seen six in 70 matches (0.086 per match); LaLiga eight in 90 (0.089); the Bundesliga six in 54 (0.111); and out in front is Ligue 1 with seven in 54 (0.130). That’s dwarfed by the UEFA Champions League, which has seen seven in 36 matches (0.194) — meaning UEFA’s interpretation yields more than double the number of handball penalties than Spain and Italy.But the Premier League is certainly out on its own with its relaxed interpretation for handball, placing more emphasis on a player’s natural movement. It’s going to take a really, really obvious offence for the VAR to get involved. Some will probably feel Zabarnyi should fall into that category, and it’s a fair argument.Zabarnyi’s arm was out from his body, and in one of the other European competitions it would be pretty certain to result in a spot kick. The Premier League, however, wants to get this law closer to how it was before the IFAB began tweaking it six years ago.Zabarnyi is running, and the movement of his arms stays consistent before Mavididi attempts the cross. That said, if the referee had given the spot kick, it would have been overturned.The “referee’s call” is going to be more of a focus on handball offences than anything else.Some factual parts of this article include information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.

https://fibersports.net/live-streaming/cricket-live-streaming/