Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?
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.
On Tuesday, AFC Bournemouth midfielder David Brooks looked set to be shown a red card against Chelsea when referee Rob Jones was sent to the pitchside monitor to review possible violent conduct on Marc Cucurella.
Was the official correct to reject the VAR’s advice, and how common is this in the Premier League?
Possible red card: Violent conduct by Brooks on Cucurella
What happened: The game was locked at 1-1 in the 52nd minute, with the ball in the hands of Chelsea goalkeeper Robert Sánchez. As he prepared to release it, there was an off-the-ball collision between David Brooks and Marc Cucurella. The VAR, Graham Scott, advised referee Rob Jones that there had been a serious missed incident — one that hasn’t been seen by the officials — for violent conduct by the Bournemouth player.
VAR decision: Red card rejected, yellow card shown.
VAR review: For the first time in the Premier League, a red-card review was rejected. And it was also the first time that a yellow card was shown when the VAR believed a player should be sent off.
The VAR cannot advise a yellow card … only a red. But once at the monitor, the referee is in complete control of the final outcome and doesn’t have to follow the VAR. Indeed, he could have decided to book Cucurella instead if he wanted.
A VAR is going to make mistakes, because no one is infallible. It’s why the monitor exists, to act as a fail-safe against incorrect reviews. But this is the first time it’s happened this season, and only the 12th rejection in 5½ seasons of VAR in the English top flight.
For the system to be working totally correctly there shouldn’t be any incorrect VAR overturns, as these should get rejected by the referee at the screen.
As we know, however, VAR is far from perfect and referees usually go to the monitor expecting to be proved wrong.
Perhaps because they officials didn’t see Brooks put his arm out to stop Cucurella, the VAR felt it should go to a monitor review.
This system of VAR conditions referees to think they must have made a mistake when they go to the monitor, which is why rejections are so rare. Maybe because Jones was seeing it for the first time that allowed him to make his own decision without unconscious influence.
Jones told Brooks he was booking him for a reckless challenge, with the arm going across Cucurella’s shoulder. While you can question Brooks’ action, you can’t say there was definitive proof of violent conduct — be that contact with the head or pulling on Cucurella’s hair.
If there had been an angle that confirmed Cucurella’s hair had been tugged, then Brooks would definitely have seen red — as Southampton‘s Jack Stephens did last month for doing exactly that on the same player. Yet you couldn’t be certain of it.
It was a strange review, largely because the available replays were of poor quality. Unless you have cameras following every player, there’s always the possibility that incidents will happen out of normal shot.
There have been similar situations over the years, where a review has not been advised because the replays aren’t good enough. For instance, in December 2023, Aston Villa‘s Diego Carlos was in a tussle with Eddie Nketiah, with claims that an elbow had been thrown at the Arsenal player, but you really couldn’t tell what had happened from the long-distance camera and there was no review.
It’s also situation which proves that opposing managers will never agree over contentious incidents.
“They have to explain [it]. If they give a yellow, that means something happened,” Chelsea boss Enzo Maresca said after the game.
“I said many times, for me, if there is no intention to take the ball, it’s a red. So, how can they judge that it was not dangerous? You cannot judge that it was not dangerous. The intention was just to go against Marc Cucurella. In my opinion, it’s a red.”
Bournemouth boss Andoni Iraola disagreed: “I don’t understand why the VAR has asked him to go and check this. I think it’s a clear yellow card. I’ve seen nothing violent.”
Verdict: Scott, who was fourth official for the Carlos incident described above last season but has exclusively been used as a VAR this season, has a near-perfect record. Across 17 appointments he has no errors to his name. He’s had to look at 32 KMIs, returning votes of 159-1 — only once has a Panel member thought he made a mistake.
But this time, from the available evidence, it simply wasn’t possible to say with certainty that Brooks’ actions should result in a red card for violent conduct, and the referee was right to reject the review.
Coincidentally, in November 2022, Scott was the first referee to ever reject a review. Of the 12 monitor rejections, three have been made by Michael Oliver — the only referee to have done so more than once.
However, the system isn’t foolproof. The Premier League’s Key Match Incidents Panel ruled that the referee was incorrect to ignore the VAR’s advice to allow a goal for Leeds United against Wolverhampton Wanderers in 2022-23, and give a penalty to Aston Villa against Crystal Palace last season.
BONUS BIT
Iraola was angry about Chelsea’s late equaliser, arguing that it should be disallowed because Cucurella was too close to Antoine Semenyo in the Bournemouth wall.
“I think there is a goal that they score that should be disallowed,” Iraola said. “When they shoot the free kick, you stop the image and Cucurella is touching our wall. It should be one yard, it’s not, we cannot argue if it’s half a yard or three quarters, he’s touching Semenyo like this.
“And I understand the referee live, 94 minutes, the pressure of Stamford Bridge. But one guy in the VAR only has to check this free kick, stop the image when he shoots. They are in a legal position, no, they are not. One second, that’s it.”
However, restart infringements are not within VAR’s remit and a goal cannot be disallowed on review for a player being too close to the wall. It has to be given by the on-field officials.
Previous VAR rejections
Nov. 1, 2020: Tottenham vs. Brighton
Goal for Tariq Lamptey stands after review rejected for a foul in the build-up by Solly March on Pierre-Emile Hojbjerg, 56 minutes
Referee: Graham Scott
VAR: Jon Moss
Dec. 13, 2020: Fulham vs. Liverpool
Penalty review rejected following Fabinho challenge on Ivan Cavaleiro, 16 minutes
Referee: Andre Marriner.
VAR: Lee Mason
Dec. 26, 2020: Aston Villa vs. Crystal Palace
Penalty review rejected following Matty Cash challenge on Patrick van Aanholt, 24 minutes
Referee: Michael Oliver
VAR: Paul Tierney
Feb 20, 2021: Liverpool vs. Everton
Penalty overturn review rejected after Trent Alexander-Arnold had brought down Dominic Calvert-Lewin, 81st minutes
Referee: Chris Kavanagh
VAR: Andre Marriner
Feb. 28. 2021: Chelsea vs. Man United
Penalty review rejected for handball against Callum Hudson-Odoi, 15 minutes
Referee: Stuart Attwell
VAR: Chris Kavanagh
Sept. 3, 2022: Nottingham Forest vs. Bournemouth
Penalty overturn review rejected, handball against Lloyd Kelly stands, 42 minutes
Referee: Michael Oliver
VAR: Graham Scott
Oct. 1, 2022: Bournemouth vs. Brighton
Penalty review rejected for challenge by Kristoffer Ajer on Jordan Zemura, 22 minutes
Referee: Tom Bramall
VAR: John Brooks
Dec. 26, 2022: Crystal Palace vs. Fulham
Goal for Tim Ream stands after review rejected for handball by Aleksandar Mitrovic in the buildup, 71 minutes
Referee: Andy Madley
VAR: Mike Dean
March 18, 2023: Wolves vs. Leeds United
Goal for Rodrigo stands after review rejected for a foul in the build-up by on Adama Traoré, 90+7 minutes
Referee: Michael Salisbury
VAR: David Coote
Sept. 16, 2023: Aston Villa vs. Crystal Palace
Penalty overturn review rejected, foul by Chris Richards on Ollie Watkins stands, 90+3 minutes
Referee: Darren England
VAR: Rob Jones
May 19, 2024: Arsenal vs. Everton
Goal for Kai Havertz stands after review rejected for handball by Gabriel Jesus in the buildup, 89 minutes
Referee: Michael Oliver
VAR: Rob Jones
