Football

Premier League VAR review: How was Enzo Fernández not offside? Wrongly awarded goal costs Man United

14 min read
WhatsApp

The video assistant referee causes controversy every week, whether it be the Premier League, or , but how are those decisions made and are they correct?

For the 2026-27 season, we are taking a look at the major incidents to explain the process in terms of both VAR protocol and the laws of the game. The most surprising, controversial and complicated decisions will be examined all season long right here.

Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, with over 12 seasons on the elite list, working across the Premier League and . With extensive experience at the elite level, he 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 matchday.

Why was Phil Foden sent off? And why was Enzo Fernández not ruled offside in Manchester derby?

Manchester United 0-1 Manchester City (Sept. 13)

Referee: Michael Oliver
VAR: Matt Donohue
Time: 23rd minute
Incident: Red card for Phil Foden of Manchester City

What happened: City’s Foden appeared to kick out at United’s following an untidy tangle between the two players.

VAR decision: The VAR checked and confirmed the red card for violent conduct by Foden as a correct decision.

VAR review: The VAR had a straightforward check to confirm this on-field decision, as there was a clear kick out from Foden into Fernandes’ body. The pictures aligned with the on-field comms from referee Michael Oliver, and this was a simple VAR process.

Verdict: Foden can have no complaints as he lost his composure in this situation.

There might be some around the level of contact of Foden’s action. However, when you kick out in nature that Foden did in this moment, it is very likely that a red card for violent card will be the outcome, regardless of level of contact.

Referee Oliver was very quick with his decision, but his positioning was excellent, allowing him all the available information to reach his outcome. Additionally, it was a straightforward review for the VAR, and he correctly checked and cleared the decision having considered all the dynamics of the incident.

Time: 60th minute
Incident: City awarded controversial winning goal

What happened: scored what looked like a goal that would be disallowed for offside. However, following a long VAR check, the goal was awarded and City took a significant lead.

Read more:Lamine Yamal: Kylian Mbappé and I are best, but Ballon d’Or should be mine

VAR decision: The VAR overturned the on-field decision and awarded a goal, judging that Haaland was onside before he tapped into the United net.

VAR review: There were two key elements in this offside goal review. First, semi-automated technology showed that Haaland was in an onside position when the ball was crossed by his teammate. Second, the VAR had a subjective decision to make; did Man City’s Enzo Fernández either play the ball or impact on Man United center back Lisandro Martínez’s ability to play the ball given that Fernández was in an offside position and in front of the goal?

The VAR was comfortable that Fernández didn’t meet any of the offside criteria and advised the referee that a goal should be the outcome.

Verdict: This was an incorrect decision by the VAR to award a goal to City, a controversial outcome that will create a lot of noise in the coming days.

What was correct: the factual aspect of the decision, which showed that Haaland was onside when the cross was played. Technology is now applied in these situations, and pictures clearly showed the position of the City attacker behind the leg of United’s Dorgu.

However, the subjective element of this decision is where the VAR has made his error. There are two significant sections of law that the VAR did not apply in this moment, which should have resulted in a different outcome and the goal disallowed. It should be deemed an offside offense when (A) A player clearly attempts to play a ball that is close when this action impacts an opponent, or (B) A player makes an obvious action that clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

In this situation, Man United’s Martinez was clearly impacted by the position and action of Fernández. Martinez’s ability to defend the ball was certainly affected by Fernández, and this should have been recognized within the VAR review.

The process in this situation should have been an on-field review, when the referee comes across to the screen and views the incident himself. This would have been a subjective decision and therefore only the referee can make the final decision.

Soccer doesn’t like what it doesn’t understand, and this was a confusing situation for everyone. The incident will be viewed as a big error and ultimately game-changing.

Should Sunderland have been given a penalty vs. ?

Sunderland 0-2 Arsenal (Sept. 12)

Referee: John Brooks
VAR: Stuart Attwell
Time: 54 min
Incident: Penalty awarded to Sunderland

What happened: With the score 0-0 early in the second half, Arsenal were left frustrated as defender Ezri Konsa was adjudged to have fouled Sunderland’s Dan Ballard after a Sunderland corner, and referee John Brooks pointed to the spot.

Read more:Wrexham suffer heaviest loss under Reynolds, Mac in West Ham rout

VAR decision: VAR checked and confirmed the on-field decision of a penalty kick to Sunderland.

VAR review: Brooks’ live comms described Konsa’s actions on Ballard as being “all over him at the near post, facing the wrong way.” Having considered the communication from the referee, VAR ruled that he was accurate in his description and his rationale for awarding a penalty kick, and confirmed the decision as correct.

Verdict and insight: With the heightened profile, focus, and referees asked to be more assertive in set-play situations such as corners, there was a high chance that a small number of penalty kicks would be awarded incorrectly, and this was an example of it playing out in real-time.

From the referee’s on-field position, this incident would have looked like Konsa was clumsy with his contact on Ballard. As both players fall to the ground, referee Brooks believed that it was the Arsenal player who was pulling, deliberately facing away from the ball and committing a holding offense — the type of foul the football world was hoping would be penalized this season.

However, from the replays, it was clear that though Arsenal’s Konsa engaged with Ballard with normal contact, Ballard using his left arm to pull Konsa’s shirt made the Arsenal defender spin and land on the Sunderland center back. Any punishable offense was, in fact, committed by Ballard and the restart should have been a defensive free kick.

Mikel Arteta was fuming afterwards and it’s difficult to understand why VAR did not intervene in this situation given the information available to him, as it was a clear but understandable on-field error by the referee — the referee’s live description of the incident did not match the replay pictures, and this should be a red flag to the VAR.

This was a poor non-intervention by VAR, and an on-field review should have been recommended.

Why was Forest’s Williams denied a winner vs. Spurs?

Nottingham Forest 0-0 Tottenham (Sep. 5)

Craig Pawson
Peter Bankes
: 67 min
Possible handball to Forest

Forest defender Neco Williams thought he had given his team the lead as he bundled it across the Spurs goal line. However, VAR overturned the goal for a handball offense.

VAR checked the referee’s call of a goal for Forest and determined that Williams handled the ball immediately before scoring and recommended that the goal be disallowed.

This was a difficult review for the VAR, which involved multiple angles and replay speeds to determine if this goal should be allowed to stand.

Read more:Arsenal to contact Pro Ref over Sunderland penalty incident – source

VAR Bankes would have been uncomfortable with the way Williams bundled the ball into the goal, as there was very high chance that it had struck his arm. However, even if the contact was accidental, the law states that any touch of the arm by the goalscorer immediately before a goal must be disallowed.

The in-goal camera provided the decisive information, as it showed the ball striking the arm of Williams as he threw himself in to try and score, creating a change in trajectory of the ball and resulting in a goal — VAR recommended to the referee that he should disallow the goal for a handball.

Not an easy process for the VAR to review. However, once you see the decisive replays from inside Spurs’ goal, it is a straightforward decision for the VAR, as the law dictates the outcome.

With so much debate surrounding the Harry Maguire “handball goal” from last week — when the ball struck the arm of Maguire before his shot was deflected into the goal off a defender, meaning Maguire was not the actual scorer — this scenario is far clearer and the correct outcome is reached.

How new standards cost Arsenal a clear penalty

Aston Villa 0-1 Arsenal (Aug. 31)

Jarred Gillett
James Bell
: 90 + 9 mins
Possible penalty to Arsenal

Arsenal’s Bruno Guimarães was screaming for a penalty after he was challenged from behind by Villa’s Ian Maatsen inside the box. Referee Jarred Gillett waved away the appeals.

VAR checked and cleared the on-field decision of no penalty.

VAR James Bell clearly applied the new “high bar” for intervention when he cleared this decision, taking the view that the referee’s on-field decision not to award a penalty to Arsenal was not a clear and obvious error. After reviewing the replays, VAR quickly checked and cleared the decision as correct.

For me, this was a clear penalty kick that should’ve been awarded to Arsenal. I was surprised it was not given on-field by match referee Gillett, and equally surprised the VAR did not recommend a pitch-side review.

The decision by Villa’s Maatsen to challenge in the nature he did, from behind with a scissor action and no opportunity to play the ball was a poor one. By making contact only with Guimarães and none on the ball, there can be little doubt that it met the threshold for a foul — and it took place inside the penalty box.

The surprising non-intervention by VAR is a result of the Premier League’s desire this season to have less involvement and only very clear errors to be corrected, with a new “higher bar” for interventions to be applied.

It’s a positive principle that should result in less time spent re-litigating decisions, yes. However, this was clearly a mistake from the on-field referee not to award a penalty and, in my opinion, this was an intervention that has been missed by the VAR team.

Read more:Ex-England winger Raheem Sterling admits to dangerous driving

Arsenal winning the game will cover the narrative to some degree, however, if this was a deciding moment that cost Arsenal all three points, the profile of the incident would’ve been significant.

The high bar will absolutely improve the game and lower the expectations from football that VAR should get involved in everything, however it is so important that clear fouls in the penalty area, like this situation, do not get overlooked when the referee has mis-read a key moment.

Why did Maguire’s obvious handball not cancel goal?

Manchester United 5-2 Ipswich Town (Aug. 30)

Craig Pawson
Jarred Gillett
: 56th minute
Possible handball in lead-up to Man United’s second goal by Harry Maguire

The ball was cleared out of Ipswich’s box toward Maguire, and the ball appeared to strike the arm of Maguire. He brought the ball to his feet and struck the ball toward goal, where it then took a grave deflection from Ipswich defender Jacob Greaves before going into the goal. Following a VAR review, the goal was allowed to stand.

The referee’s call of goal for Manchester United was checked and confirmed by VAR, who deemed that Maguire was not the immediate goalscorer after an accidental handball.

VAR: “It’s an own goal and the accidental handball is not punishable, so we recommend you award the goal.”

With the knowledge that the ball had clearly struck the arm of Maguire, the VAR had two key elements to consider:

(1) Was Maguire’s shot on target before it struck Greaves and entered the goal? In other words: was Maguire the goalscorer?
(2) Was the handball by Maguire accidental or a punishable as an intentional handball offence?

The answers to both questions could have resulted in a different outcome, but the VAR determined that it was clearly an own goal by Greaves, meaning Maguire was not the scorer, and that the handball incident was accidental. Both details meant the ball striking the arm of Maguire was negated in law, and the VAR recommended to the referee that the goal should be awarded.

It’s understandable that Ipswich Town will feel hard-done by the decision.

If Maguire had scored the goal, then his handling of the ball in the lead-up would’ve canceled out the goal. It’s only because it took the massive deflection that changed the trajectory of the ball that Maguire’s incidental handball did not result in the goal being overturned.

Read more:Man United’s Bruno Fernandes named PFA men’s player of the year to complete award hat trick

In truth, it was a 50/50 decision that could have fallen the other way if the judgement of VAR was a different one. But the law doesn’t allow a goal to be disallowed in this situation if the handball by Maguire was judged as accidental.

The subjective nature of handball in general is a confusing element of the game, and if VAR had judged this as a punishable handball and disallowed the goal, it would certainly have been a credible outcome given the context of the situation in my opinion — and a more comfortable outcome for football.

However, the judgement by VAR Jared Gillett was not an incorrect one, with Maguire challenging for a bouncing ball and his arms in front of his body, the ball striking his left arm can certainly be deemed as accidental. It was on this occasion, with Man United the benefactor of it in this situation, and Ipswich rightfully feeling hard done by.

Should Liverpool have been bailed out by penalty?

Newcastle United 2-2 Liverpool (Aug. 23)

Stuart Attwell
James Bell
: 90 + 6 mins
Penalty awarded to Liverpool for a challenge by Lewis Hall on Victor Muñoz

Liverpool’s Muñoz charged into the Newcastle penalty area late into the game, and Hall made a clumsy challenge bringing the Liverpool player to the ground. Referee Stuart Attwell pointed to the spot for a late penalty for the Reds.

The referee’s call of penalty for the challenge by Hall on Muñoz was checked and confirmed by VAR.

The referee:”He doesn’t play the ball. He makes clear contact.”
VAR: “It’s knee into thigh contact. Confirming the on-field decision of penalty.”

This was a correct decision made by referee Atwell and his assistant, and a decision I felt was clear in real-time.

In this type of situation, with an attacker moving into the penalty area at speed with the ball under control, any challenge by a defender must successfully play the ball or they run a very high risk of committing a foul.

Hall was naïve to make his clumsy challenge in the manner he did, and Muñoz was too clever for the Newcastle defender. This was a clear foul by Hall, and a penalty kick a correct outcome.

While it may feel to Newcastle fans that Liverpool were bailed out and gifted a draw after middling performance, Hall’s foul was needless and to blame for Liverpool equalizing.

Read also
Tags: #Arsenal #Bruno fernandes #champions league #Championship #debate #Erling haaland #Fa cup #Has

Journalist

Similar articles