Understanding VAR Decisions in the Premier League: A Case Study

The Video Assistant Referee (VAR) continues to generate controversy each week in the Premier League. This season, we are examining significant incidents to clarify the decision-making process, focusing on VAR protocols and the Laws of the Game.

Andy Davies, a former Select Group referee with over 12 seasons of experience in the elite categories, including both the Premier League and Championship, provides invaluable insights into the VAR processes, rationale, and protocols observed during Premier League matchdays.

In a particular incident involving Referee John Brooks and VAR James Bell, the discussion revolves around a notable VAR overturn that occurred 16 minutes into a match.

Initially, Manchester United was awarded a penalty following an alleged foul on Matheus Cunha by Fulham defender Jorge Cuenca. However, upon VAR review, the decision was overturned in favor of a free kick awarded to Manchester United outside the penalty area.

The VAR decision was articulated by Brooks, who stated: “After review, the Fulham No. 15 commits a holding offense outside the penalty area. The final decision is a free kick to Manchester United.” Brooks had initially believed that the holding offense began outside the penalty area and progressed inside, prompting his penalty award.

Many fans perceived the penalty as resulting from Cuenca’s challenge on Cunha, where Cuenca clearly made contact with the ball. However, the VAR focused on the upper-body contact, concluding that the initial and conclusive contact occurred outside the penalty area, thus deeming the penalty incorrect and necessitating an overturn.

The VAR conducted a swift secondary check on the challenge, subsequently instructing Brooks to alter his original decision. The merits of penalizing the holding offense are debatable; this instance was on the lower end of the threshold for such fouls and gained notoriety mainly due to the penalty’s overturn and the fact that United scored from the resulting free kick.

Had the holding offense occurred within the penalty area, it would have been treated as a foul warranting a VAR review. However, in this case, it was a straightforward factual overturn concerning the foul’s location, eliminating the need for the referee to consult the monitor.

Ultimately, the outcome was deemed correct.