The VAR Review: Martinez red card, Martinelli block on Éderson

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

After each weekend we discuss the main incidents, to examine and explain the process, both in terms of the VAR protocol and the rules of the game.

In this week’s VAR Review: Should Manchester United defender Lisandro Martínez have been sent off at Crystal Palace? Did Arsenal’s Gabriel Martinelli foul Manchester City goalkeeper Éderson before Gabriel scored? And was Tottenham Hotspur keeper Guglielmo Vicario given a red card?

Possible red card: Martinez challenge on Kamada

What happened: Manchester United were on the attack in the 63rd minute when the ball came loose on the edge of the penalty area. Crystal Palace midfielder Daichi Kamada went to challenge Lisandro Martínez, with the United player appearing to take the challenge with both legs. Referee David Coote awarded Palace a free kick and booked Martínez.

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR assessment: The VAR, Chris Kavanagh, decided that because Martínez made no contact with Kamada, the yellow card shown on the field was an acceptable disciplinary outcome, but it is difficult to see how this offence could ever be considered a footballing offence. The law also does not require a player to make contact with an opponent for it to be a red card.

Martínez immediately jumped on Kamada and stamped on the ball in a way that should be seen as a danger to the safety of an opponent. How can there be any justification for trying to play the ball in this way? Martínez should have been sent off.

Luton Town midfielder Jacob Brown escaped a red card from VAR for a similar offence against Manchester City last season, by jumping into the pitch with both feet and making contact with the ball. Brown guided Phil Foden in with one foot instead of two, and although there was light contact with the opponent’s leg, there was no stamping movement.

The Premier League’s Independent Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel voted unanimously that referee Tim Robinson and VAR Jarred Gillett had missed a red card for gross misconduct. It noted: “The attacker gets away with the offence because he wins part of the ball, but the technique of the tackle where he jumps in with both feet is shocking and very dangerous.”

You can copy and paste that description into this incident.

Possible punishment: Hands by Lacroix, Lerma

What happened: United were awarded a free kick in the penalty area in the 68th minute, the ball deflected past the head of Palace’s Ismaïla Sarr before appearing to strike the arm of Maxence Lacroix and then Jefferson Lerma. The ball went behind the ball for a corner.

VAR decision: No punishment.

VAR assessment: Handball will have to be clear this season to get VAR involved, with interpretation closer to where it was a few years ago. But even with a more relaxed approach, this would not have resulted in a penalty last season.

Both Lacroix and Lerma have their arms in positions justified by their movement, not extended from the body, and neither places their hand on the ball.

Possible foul for goal: Martinelli on Ederson

What happened: Arsenal took the lead in first-half injury time when Gabriel Magalhães headed in a Bukayo Saka corner. But was goalkeeper Éderson fouled as the cross went over the bar?look here)

VAR decision: The goal is set.

VAR assessment: This was almost a carbon copy of a corner routine from a few minutes earlier. Saka passed the ball to the back post to find Gabriel’s run, with Gabriel Martinelli positioning himself behind Ederson to create a blocking position.

In other top European leagues this might lead to VAR intervention, for example in the event of contact with the goalkeeper in the five-metre area, but there are plenty of examples of situations where this goes unpunished in the Premier League.

If an attacker stands still or makes no clear movement towards the goalkeeper, this is seen as normal football contact and therefore the VAR, John Brooks, did not intervene.

Arsenal suffered such a decision two years ago when Aston Villa’s Douglas Luiz scored directly from a corner. Boubacar Kamara was accused of blocking Arsenal goalkeeper Aaron Ramsdale, but VAR ruled that the Villa player had not moved and that no foul had been committed.

And last season, Tottenham Hotspur goalkeeper Guglielmo Vicario conceded goals against Man City and Everton when the opposition placed players in front of him to prevent him from running freely to the ball.

It comes down to whether you think a keeper has the right to a free run to the ball, or whether it is their responsibility — or that of a teammate — to ensure they are not blocked. You could also argue that Ederson put himself in a bad position in both corner routines.

Possible red card: Haaland for throwing the ball at Gabriel

What happened: After Man City equalised in the eighth minute of injury time, Erling Haaland picked the ball out of the net and threw it at the head of Gabriel, who ran back onto the pitch.look here)

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR assessment: It is risible, but the suggestion that we should see VAR red cards for this is far from the truth. Brooks looked into it, but it was not deemed to be an act of violent conduct.

We regularly see players kick and throw the ball at opponents, but they never get sent off for it. That’s not to say you couldn’t argue the case within the law, but Haaland would have had to throw the ball with far more force or brutality for VAR to consider it a red card — but the City striker would have been shown a yellow card if the officials on the pitch had seen it.

The way VAR looked at it, there can be no retrospective effect, not that it would have reached the threshold for a charge. While the possibility of retrospective effect still exists, VAR means that the chance of an incident not being reviewed by one of the officials is extremely small. So as a result, it doesn’t happen anymore.

Possible punishment: Fofana challenges Summerville

What happened: West Ham were 2-0 down and on the attack in the 28th minute when Crysencio Summerville attempted to latch onto a pass from Lucas Paquetá. Summerville was held by the arm by Chelsea defender Wesley Fofana and went to ground. Referee Sam Barrott waved away the penalty appeal and the ball went to VAR, Stuart Attwell.

VAR decision: No punishment.

VAR assessment: It’s all about judging the impact of a player’s actions. Many will argue that Fofana prevented Summerville from getting the pass, and that it should be a penalty.

We have seen a number of similar situations that did not result in penalties, where the hold was not extended and therefore the attacker did not fall to the ground as he did.

So VAR will consider whether the holding really hindered Summerville in the way he suggests. Attwell will consider how long Summerville was held, and whether the player went over in a theatrical manner; does that fit the nature of the holding?

Attwell decided the holding was only “fleeting” and Summerville went down too easily. It is on the verge of intervention, but perhaps not quite reaching the high bar of the Premier League.

We might see the RMI Panel saying that this should have been given as an on-field penalty, but it didn’t meet the threshold for VAR. West Ham benefited from this earlier in the season for the penalty they won against Aston Villa. The RMI Panel found that referee Tony Harrington should not have given it, but also said that it was subjective and not enough of an error to warrant VAR cancelling the penalty.

The high bar has meant that VAR in the Premier League has not produced outcomes that many would consider fairer. But PGMOL and the Premier League would argue that it is the perfect example of a “referee decision” — so whichever way you look at it, it is still an on-field decision, because it falls within the range of subjectivity where either outcome is acceptable.

Last season there were seven subjective VAR interventions at this point, while this season there have only been three – one of which was for offside. It’s a small sample size and it’s too early to draw conclusions about the number of interventions, and in reality there has been far less controversy with refereeing decisions this season.

Possible red card: Handball by Vicario

What happened: Yehor Yarmoliuk entered the penalty area in the 58th minute, with Tottenham goalkeeper Vicario claiming the ball from Mikkel Damsgaard. Vicario touched the ball three times to keep it away from Damsgaard, but the third time was outside the penalty area. The referees allowed play to continue, with Kristoffer Ajer being shown a yellow card for his protests.

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR assessment: There is a common misconception that handball outside the penalty area automatically results in a red card, but in doing so the goalkeeper denies a clear scoring opportunity (DOGSO).

Vicario’s first two touches are important because they come when the ball is in the box and the ball is moved behind Damsgaard and away from goal. That means the direction of the movement is away from goal, Damsgaard has no realistic chance of getting the ball straight away and two Tottenham players would have the opportunity to close him down.

If Vicario had played the ball outside the penalty area and the ball had gone towards the goal, where Damsgaard would have run towards it, it would have been a case of DOGSO.

Since it is not DOGSO, VAR cannot intervene to tell referee John Brooks that a handball has been missed and therefore a free kick and a yellow card should be awarded. The real question is for the assistant, as he had the key view to see that Vicario had acted outside the penalty area.

It should have been a yellow card and a free kick for Brentford, but nothing more.

Some factual parts of this article are based on information from the Premier League and PGMOL.