Analyzing VAR Decisions: A Case Study in the Premier League

The video assistant referee (VAR) continues to spark debate each week in the Premier League. This season, we are taking a closer look at significant incidents to clarify how decisions are made and whether they are accurate.

Andy Davies, a former Select Group referee with over 12 seasons of experience in both the Premier League and Championship, provides invaluable insights into the VAR process. His extensive background in officiating at elite levels enables him to elucidate the rationale and protocols employed during a Premier League matchday.

### Incident Overview

**Referee:** Sam Barrott
**VAR:** Craig Pawson
**Incident:** VAR intervention for a foul in the penalty area
**Time:** 11th minute

During this incident, Chelsea forward Estêvão advanced towards the Bournemouth penalty area, closely monitored by defender Antoine Semenyo. As Estêvão fell to the ground after contact, referee Barrott dismissed Chelsea’s penalty appeals, reasoning that the contact was a result of both players’ natural running actions, leading to Estêvão inadvertently tripping himself.

However, VAR Pawson recommended an on-field review for a potential penalty kick, suggesting that Semenyo had committed a clear foul on Estêvão. During the VAR review, Pawson had to ascertain whether the contact was indeed a natural outcome of both players’ movements or a foul by Semenyo. While it was evident that Estêvão tripped himself at the end of the play, the critical question was how the initial contact occurred.

Initially, Pawson may have found it difficult to overturn the on-field decision, as the primary broadcast footage was inconclusive. However, after examining tighter angles, including a view from behind, he identified that Semenyo had stepped into Estêvão’s path, making sufficient contact with the trailing leg to cause the Chelsea player to stumble.

Following this assessment, Pawson advised an on-field review, which led referee Barrott to reconsider the footage and ultimately award the penalty.

### Verdict

This VAR intervention was deemed credible based on the current standards, although it may be viewed as a marginal case for VAR involvement. Barrott appeared uncertain when reviewing the footage, needing some persuasion to reconcile his initial judgment with what the replays showed.

In such scenarios, it is common for contact to arise from both players’ natural running movements, which complicates the decision-making process. For a penalty to be awarded, there must be clear evidence of a foul by the defender against the attacker. In this instance, one could argue that the threshold for a VAR intervention was met, albeit at a relatively low standard.