VAR review: Why VAR didn't intervene in Man United vs. Forest corner dispute

The Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made and are they correct?

This season, we take a look at the major incidents to examine and explain the process both in terms of the VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

All photo credit: NBC

Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, with over 12 seasons on the elite list, working across the Premier League and Championship. With extensive experience at the elite level, he has operated within the VAR space in the Premier League and offers a unique insight into the processes, rationale and protocols that are delivered on a Premier League matchday.

Nottingham Forest 2-2 Manchester United

Referee: Darren England
Assistant referee: Akil Howson
VAR: Tim Robinson
Incident: Corner awarded after a ball appears to leave field of play
Time: 33rd minute

What happened: Nottingham Forest defender Nicolò Savona headed clear from a Bryan Mbeumo cross. With the ball running towards the corner flag and seemingly out of play, Savona appeared to have made up enough ground to keep the ball in. Assistant referee Howson disagreed, however, and awarded a corner kick in United's favor from the opposite side of the pitch, much to the displeasure of the Forest players and supporters at that end of the City Ground. The resulting corner kick, almost inevitably, ended with the ball in the back of the Forest net, as United's Casemiro scored from a header.

Decision review: Law 9 of the game states that the ball is out of play "when it has wholly passed over the goal line/touchline." The ball being out of play should be judged on factual information and, unfortunately on this occasion, the footage confirms that it was indeed still in play. Furthermore, the assistant's decision was made from the other side of the pitch, and his view was partially obstructed by the goalposts and players' bodies.

VAR: This is an area that VAR is unable to review under the current protocols. Forest will feel aggrieved, given they have had two incorrect corners awarded against them in as many weeks, which both resulted in goals against them. Though in my opinion, the corner awarded against them last weekend at Bournemouth was an understandable mis-read of the situation in real time.

At the latest IFAB meeting, it was decided not to introduce possible VAR reviews for incorrectly awarded corners which lead to a goal. So for now, Forest boss Sean Dyche's frustrations over the incident will go unheard.

Verdict: If Casemiro doesn't score from the resulting corner then this moment would have been forgotten. But it's clear that assistant referee Howson did not have definitive information to make the call, given the positional circumstances of both the ball and himself. A ball out of play decision should be a factual one by any match official, and there was no need for Howson to force this for many reasons. In decisions that require full factual information which are not available in the moment, the advice would be to do nothing.

play

1:58

Is Moisés Caicedo or Cole Palmer more important for Chelsea?

ESPN FC's Julien Laurens joins Gab Marcotti on the Gab & Juls show to react to Chelsea's 1-0 victory over Tottenham.

Tottenham 0-1 Chelsea

Referee: Jarred Gillett
VAR: Craig Pawson
Incident: Possible red card for serious foul play (SFP) by Rodrigo Bentancur on Reece James
Time: 45th minute (+2)

What happened: Chelsea right back James received a pass from teammate Wesley Fofana and neatly moved the ball forward with his first touch; Tottenham midfielder Bentancur challenged him and caught him late on his ankle with a degree of force. Referee Gillett, who had a good view of the challenge, awarded a free kick and, once he had managed the mass confrontation that ensued between both sets of players, cautioned Bentancur for the late and reckless challenge.

VAR decision: After a review of the incident, the VAR, Pawson, was comfortable that the nature of the late challenge from Bentancur sat within the framework of a reckless play and was not a Serious Foul Play challenge (SFP), which carries the sanction of a red card. Live communication from Gillett would have described that the challenge had been made with a level of force, however contact was low and on top of the foot/lower ankle.

VAR review: Pawson would have had an element of doubt when reviewing this challenge and Gillett's communication in real time would have been pretty accurate against the footage he viewed. However, the point of contact on the ankle, and the level of force employed by Bentancur, would have concerned both Pawson and his assistant VAR Adrian Holmes, and this aspect would certainly have been the focus of the review.

The action of Bentancur's foot, stepping down, as opposed to following through onto James' ankle reduced the intensity of the contact, albeit still a painful one for James. This factor led Pawson to check and complete Gilllett's assessment of a reckless challenge as opposed to recommending an on-field review for a possible red card.

In subjective situations like these, the process for the VAR is to always start with the on-field decision as a base. Only if the pictures suggest that the on-field decision is wrong -- in the opinion of the VAR -- would a review be escalated to an on-field review.

Verdict: I believe this to be a reckless challenge by Bentancur, and Pawson was correct not to intervene. However, it was at the high end of the threshold and I understand it's a decision that will divide opinion. Analyzing these types of challenges at a reduced speed or as a still image, can create a false picture to judge an outcome -- certainly the more slow replays you watch of this challenge, the worse it looks.

Gillett had a great angle of the challenge and this would have allowed him a clear understanding of both the intensity and the action of Bentancur's foot as it stepped onto the lower ankle of James, as opposed to leading through with his studs. For this to be deemed a red card, evidence of greater force, intensity and fuller contact would need to be presented from the pictures.

The mass confrontation that occurred in the aftermath is often designed by players to increase the pressure on the referee and raise the expectations of the watching public. As a result, the referee did well to keep his body language strong, stay calm and trust his instinct -- a skill that elite referees in the Premier League excel at.

play

0:59

How West Ham snapped home Premier League losing streak vs. Newcastle

Take a look at the numbers behind West Ham's 3-1 win over Newcastle in the Premier League.

West Ham United 3-1 Newcastle United

Referee: Rob Jones
VAR: Paul Howard
Incident: Possible penalty overturn: Malick Thiaw adjudged to have fouled Jarrod Bowen
Time: 11th minute

What happened: West Ham United's Bowen picked up a pass from teammate Aaron Wan-Bissaka in the Newcastle penalty area and was challenged by Newcastle defender Thiaw as he closed in on goal. Referee Jones felt there was a foul contact by Thiaw and pointed to the spot, awarding a penalty kick.

VAR decision: After review of the incident, the VAR, Howard, recommended an on-field review for a possible incorrect penalty award. After consulting his pitch-side monitor, Jones agreed with the VAR's opinion that, despite contact by Thiaw on Bowen, he played the ball while making the challenge and therefore a penalty kick was an incorrect outcome.

VAR review: As always, the communication from the referee was important in this review process. Jones awarded a penalty kick as his interpretation was that a foul challenge had been committed, citing that the ball had not been played by the defender. The VAR wouldn't have required too many of the available angles to review the incident and identify that, despite the contact by Thiaw on Bowen, the defender had played the ball -- information Jones was not aware of in real-time.

The review took over four minutes, which felt too long considering the evidence available. However, it's worth considering that Howard is new to the elite referee list and he, in his first high profile TV game, was probably guilty of over-thinking the situation when the process should have been more straightforward.

Verdict: This was a positive and correct intervention by VAR. A situation that follows a theme from recent weeks in the Premier League, with Thiaw making contact on the ball as he made a measured challenge on Bowen. The outcome of no penalty is consistent with recent incidents; Newcastle v Arsenal (Nick Pope) and Fulham v Arsenal (Kevin) where the details of each were very similar. It was an understandable decision by Jones initially, as his position relative to the contact on the ball would have made it look like a penalty in real time.