Video assistant referee causes controversy every week whether it be the Premier League, Champions League or FA Cup, 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 VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.
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.
Paris Saint-Germain 1-1 Arsenal (PSG won 4-3 on penalties)
Referee: Daniel Siebert
Video Assistant Referee: Bastian Dankert
Incident: Possible penalty to PSG for handball by Bukayo Saka
Read more:Moreno: Is the Champions League final too big for Arteta? – ESPN Video
What Happened: Saka’s attempted clearance from his own penalty area resulted in the ball striking both his right and left arm after he mis-timed the flight of the ball. PSG were left demanding a penalty kick. The referee waved away the appeals.
VAR Decision: VAR checked and cleared the on-field decision of no penalty.
VAR Review: VAR was quick to confirm the on-field decision of no penalty, deeming that Saka played against himself with his arms in a normal and expected position. Handball Law 12 says it is not a handball offence if a player plays, kicks, or heads the ball and it accidentally ricochets onto their own hand or arm.
Read more:Kasper Schmeichel, former Leicester goalkeeper, retires due to shoulder injury
Verdict: Correct on-field decision by the referee and a non-intervention from VAR. Law is clear that if a player accidently plays the ball onto their own hand/arm, this is not a handball offence. The only exception this would be if the ball goes directly into the opponent’s goal, as this would be deemed an offence and the goal disallowed.
Incident: Penalty to PSG for a foul by Arsenal’s Cristhian Mosquera on Khvicha Kvaratskhelia
What happened: Mosquera was deemed to have tripped PSG attacker Kvaratskhelia in the penalty area and a penalty was awarded. Mosquera was already on a yellow card, and PSG wanted the Arsenal man to receive a second.
VAR Decision/Review: VAR check was over very quickly. The VAR was very comfortable that Mosquera made no contact on the ball when challenging Kvaratskhelia, however in making his challenge he committed a foul trip on his opponent. VAR cleared the penalty award as a correct decision.
Read more:USMNT names 2026 World Cup roster after leaks
Verdict: A correct and very straight forward decision for the referee to award a penalty kick as this was a clear careless trip by Mosquera.
Despite the questioning around whether he should have received a second yellow card, law does not allow this when the foul is only careless. When a penalty is awarded, a yellow card can only be given to a player when a challenge is deemed reckless by the referee. In law, the promising attack that was denied by the foul is retained with the penalty kick re-start.
Incident: Possible penalty to Arsenal for a challenge by PSG defender Nuno Mendes on Arsenal winger Noni Madueke.
Read more:Reports: Raheem Sterling arrested for suspected drug driving amid ‘career strain’
What happened: As Madueke drove into the PSG penalty area, a clumsy challenge from behind by Mendes left Madueke on the floor and Arsenal screaming for a penalty kick — referee Siebert waved away the Arsenal protests and allowed the game to continue.
VAR Decision: VAR checked and cleared the on-field decision of no penalty.
VAR Review: VAR took a long review of this challenge as the nature of the contact by the PSG defender was clumsy and the decision not to award a penalty was debatable. However, VAR will only intervene if there is video evidence that the on-field referee has made a clear error, and replays showed that whilst Mendes was unwise to create contact with Madueke with the attacker the wrong side, the Arsenal attacker had initiated contact by locking his left arm around PSG man’s right forearm which had an impact on both players falling to the floor.
Read more:PSG beat Arsenal on penalties to retain Champions League title
VAR cleared the non-award of a penalty as a correct decision.
Verdict: The decision not to award a penalty by the referee was a credible one. Evidence on the replays clearly showed a locking of arms initiated by Madueke before the two fell to the floor, and this contact was enough for VAR not to intervene as the challenge presented itself as more a tangle than a foul by the PSG defender.
However, Mendes was fortunate. The nature of his challenge was clumsy regardless of the arm contact, and if referee Siebert had pointed to the spot, I don’t believe the VAR would have had enough evidence to deem that an error either.
