VAR Review: Arsenals…
April29April 30, 2026

VAR Review: Arsenals…

By In
ESPN Soccer News
April 29, 2026, 07:19 PM ET

The introduction of Video Assistant Referee (VAR) has sparked controversy in both the Premier League and the UEFA Champions League. This season, we delve into major decisions to analyze and clarify how these choices are made, focusing on VAR protocols and the Laws of the Game.



Andy Davies (@andydaviesref), a former select group referee, has over 12 seasons of top-level experience in the Premier League and Championship. His extensive familiarity with VAR processes provides invaluable insights into matchday protocols and decision-making.


Referee: Danny Makkelie
VAR: Dennis Higler
Time: 37 minutes
Incident: Penalty awarded to Arsenal

Incident Summary: While receiving a pass in the Atlético penalty area, Arsenal’s Viktor Gyökeres was clattered from behind by defender Dávid Hancko. Referee Makkelie awarded a penalty as Gyökeres fell to the ground due to the careless challenge.

VAR Assessment: VAR reviewed the challenge briefly and confirmed Makkelie’s decision was correct.

Conclusion: This was the right call. Hancko’s challenge was clumsy, and Gyökeres’ positioning made it impossible for the defender to play the ball, indicating a poor decision by Hancko.

Time: 55 minutes
Incident: Penalty awarded to Atlético Madrid for a handball by Arsenal defender Ben White.

Incident Summary: A shot from Atlético’s Marcos Llorente hit White’s arm after briefly deflecting off his shin, causing a debate about whether the handball was warranted. The referee awarded a penalty after consulting VAR.

VAR Assessment: VAR confirmed an error in not awarding a penalty initially, citing White’s arm being in an unnatural position. Despite the deflection, the arm’s position was found to constitute a handball offense. Referee Makkelie agreed and awarded the penalty.

Conclusion: This decision was clearer than a previous contentious penalty awarded against Paris Saint-Germain. Here, White’s arm was extended away from his body, significantly increasing the chance of a handball being called. The negligible deflection did not affect the decision. A penalty was justified, especially given the context within Premier League officiating.

Time: 81 minutes
Incident: VAR rescinds a penalty awarded to Arsenal.

Incident Summary: Referee Makkelie initially awarded a penalty after Hancko appeared to trip Arsenal’s Eberechi Eze in the box. However, after VAR review, the penalty was overturned.

VAR Assessment: VAR determined that the contact was minimal and did not constitute a penalty. The contact resulted from Eze falling over Hancko’s leg rather than a clear tripping foul.

Conclusion: I initially perceived this as a penalty, and after reviewing the replays, I maintain that view. The challenge was late, and Hancko made contact with Eze without touching the ball, which should be deemed a careless trip as per the criteria for penalties.

The referee’s initial positive decision was well-justified.

It is challenging to rationalize the VAR intervention in this case. The footage indicates clear contact, resulting from a late challenge rather than being a ‘clear and obvious error.’ This represents a failure in officiating.

Moreover, while the referee was reviewing the footage, he had the full range of options available. It seems possible that the VAR may have influenced the referee by downplaying the importance of the contact, suggesting that Eze was acting to procure a penalty rather than being the victim of a foul.

In my view, both officials were mistaken, and Arsenal has grounds to feel wronged by the outcome.