The Video Assistant Referee (VAR) continues to spark debate each week in the Premier League. But how are these crucial decisions made, and how accurate are they?
This season, we’re examining key incidents to clarify the processes involved, focusing on VAR protocols and the Laws of the Game.
– VAR Review: Should Manchester United have received a penalty against Brighton?
Andy Davies (@andydaviesref), a former Select Group referee with over 12 years of experience at the elite level in the Premier League and Championship, provides valuable insights into the VAR processes, rationale, and protocols during a Premier League matchday.
Referee: Andy Madley
VAR: Craig Pawson
Incident: Potential offside in Sunderland’s winning goal
Time: 90+3 minutes
Incident Summary: Sunderland clinched a dramatic victory at Stamford Bridge, with some controversy arising as Lutsharel Geertruida was positioned offside, obstructing the view of Chelsea goalkeeper Robert Sánchez when the goal was scored by Chemsdine Talbi.
VAR Decision: The VAR’s review aimed to determine if Geertruida was offside at the moment the ball was played and whether he interfered with the goalkeeper’s ability to play the ball.
SUNDERLAND UPSETS CHELSEA AT STAMFORD BRIDGE.
Chemsdine Talbi finishes off a brilliant counter-attack to secure a famous comeback win for Sunderland. pic.twitter.com/aQY3GpGbYv
— NBC Sports Soccer (@NBCSportsSoccer) October 25, 2025
VAR Review: Given Geertruida’s clear offside position and his obstruction of the Chelsea goalkeeper’s line of vision, the crucial factor was the positioning of Chelsea defender Reece James at the moment of the goal. Referee Madley, who positioned himself well to make a decision, determined that Geertruida was directly behind James, thus not affecting the goalkeeper’s line of sight. Multiple camera angles confirmed Madley’s assessment.
Conclusion: This was an unusual incident, but both the on-field referee and VAR interpreted Law 11 (Offside) correctly. This type of situation often leads to debate, but it’s vital to recognize that the integrity of goals must be preserved in such scenarios.
2:19
How can Arne Slot enhance Liverpool’s Premier League performance?
Gabriele Marcotti and Stewart Robson discuss strategies for Arne Slot to rejuvenate Liverpool’s form following another defeat.
Referee: Simon Hooper (1st half), Tim Robinson (2nd half)
VAR: Chris Kavanagh
Incident: Possible penalty for a challenge by Nathan Collins on Cody Gakpo
Time: 44 minutes
Incident Summary: Gakpo received a pass from Florian Wirtz inside the Brentford penalty area. As he maneuvered the ball, Gakpo lured Collins into a challenge, deftly shifting the ball to avoid contact. He fell to the ground in anticipation of a penalty, but referee Hooper signaled for play to continue, asserting that no foul had occurred.
VAR Decision: After reviewing the challenge, VAR Kavanagh concluded that Collins did not make sufficient contact with Gakpo to warrant a penalty, concluding the check swiftly.
VAR Review: The communication from referee Hooper laid the groundwork for this review. He had a clear view of the challenge and determined that, while Collins did not play the ball, the level of contact didn’t rise to the definition of a foul as depicted in replays.
Conclusion: This call by the referee was accurate, and the VAR’s review was straightforward. In such situations, a clear foul by a defender is crucial for considering a penalty. Gakpo felt a touch and went down, hoping to convince the referee, a common tactic used by players.
1:02
Slot reveals his surprise at the severity of Liverpool’s decline
Arne Slot comments on Liverpool’s fourth consecutive defeat in the Premier League.
Incident: Free kick overturned to a penalty kick.
Time: 56 minutes
Incident Summary: Brentford was awarded a penalty after VAR intervention determined that Liverpool’s captain Virgil van Dijk fouled Dango Ouattara at the edge of the penalty area. Referee Robinson had initially ruled it a free kick, believing the foul occurred outside the penalty box.
A foul on Virgil van Dijk was first ruled outside the box, but VAR intervened to award Brentford a penalty that Igor Thiago converted to extend the score to 3-1. pic.twitter.com/rMY0tqGn4y
— NBC Sports Soccer (@NBCSportsSoccer) October 25, 2025
VAR Decision: After examining all angles, VAR Kavanagh confirmed that the foul contact occurred on the penalty area line, warranting a penalty instead of a free kick, as initially decided by Robinson.
VAR Review: This ruling was factual rather than subjective, meaning no on-field review was needed, and the information was communicated directly to the referee.
Conclusion: The VAR’s overturn of the initial decision was both positive and factually supported.