The VAR Review: Fulham fume at disallowed goal while Man United get late penalty

Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?

After each weekend, 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.

In this week's VAR Review: Fulham were furious when Josh King's goal was ruled out at Chelsea, while Manchester United's late victory over Burnley came courtesy of a penalty.

Chelsea 2-0 Fulham

Possible foul: Muniz on Chalobah before King goal

What happened: Fulham took the lead in the 21st minute when Josh King scored on the break, but as the players celebrated, the VAR, Michael Salisbury, looked at a challenge in the buildup with Trevoh Chalobah laid on the floor in the Fulham half. Was there a foul by Rodrigo Muniz?

VAR decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR review: The Premier League prides itself on a high bar for intervention. And in the stakeholders' survey in the summer, 83% voted that it should be maintained, with only 8% feeling the VAR should be getting involved more often. That's not the case in other leagues, and this goal would likely have been ruled out in, say, LaLiga, without much noise. But we're not in Spain.

Muniz had possession of the ball and looked to turn. As he did, he stood on the boot of Chalobah. It wasn't an unexpected movement, for instance, the Fulham player didn't place his foot out of stride to make contact. It didn't result in a change of possession to start the break. It was a coming together that had no influence on the move.

Chalobah will probably be getting a lot of praise from his teammates because by staying on the floor, he gave the VAR something to look at. Had he got up and jogged back, it's pretty likely nothing would have happened.

Verdict: Referee Rob Jones has form for rejecting a VAR review, having turned down the recommendation of a red card for AFC Bournemouth's David Brooks on Marc Cucurella at Stamford Bridge in January. But on this, he incorrectly accepted the advice of the VAR.

Blame will fall on the shoulders of both officials, but ultimately it lies with the VAR as without being sent to the monitor, there's no decision for the referee to make. The VAR has put too much emphasis on Muniz's foot landing on the boot of Chalobah, rather than taking into account the full picture. In breaking the incident down to that one moment, slowed down, context was lost. Watch it at full speed, and there really is nothing in it. If the referee gives this on the field, fair enough, but it's not for VAR -- definitely not in England.

One of the key reasons for having the monitor is to provide a fail-safe against a bad intervention, because as this incident shows, there's going to be human error in the VAR hub from time to time. Jones didn't look completely sold on the decision when at the screen, but he still went with the decision so cannot be absolved.

Salisbury, who is on the UEFA list as a VAR, was due to be the video assistant for Liverpool vs. Arsenal, but in a clear sign of the thoughts of referees' chief Howard Webb, he was replaced. Webb acted swiftly, informing Salisbury on Saturday evening that he would not take up the VAR appointment. PGMO has acknowledged this was an incorrect intervention, too, not that it will be of comfort to Fulham. That was a very visible step to take, and Jones might have to take his punishment when the next appointments are announced after the international break.

It's not the first time Salisbury has been removed from duty. In April 2023, he was stood down after failing to intervene to award Brighton & Hove Albion a penalty against Tottenham Hotspur. Yet the fact he was due to be on such a high-profile game on Sunday indicates he's highly regarded.

Former referee Graham Scott, who left his role as a VAR in the summer, wrote candidly about being a video assistant in his Daily Telegraph column earlier this month. Scott described the intense pressure that surrounds each decision, saying that "the walls and ceiling feel like they are closing in" amid the all-encompassing fear of making a mistake -- and the flood of criticism that follows.

It shows just how difficult the job is, with completely different pressures compared to being out on the pitch.

The Premier League is trying to have a more concentrated group of VAR officials, but being a specialist isn't going to fix all the issues. As of the start of this season, LaLiga created a pool of officials who only work as VAR, and never go out on the pitch, while referees do not switch to being a VAR. But on Saturday, the VAR missed that Giuliano Simeone was in an offside position (even though Spain has semi-automated offside) before he scored Atlético Madrid's goal in a 1-1 draw at Alavés. The VAR, Pablo Gonzalez Fuertes, was dropped from his next appointment in Real Madrid vs. Mallorca.

For Salisbury, maybe there was in influence in the apparent missed penalty award for Manchester City against Tottenham Hotspur last weekend, when Micky van de Ven stood on the boot of Oscar Bobb. And there was the spot kick given to Arsenal against Leeds United, when Max Dowman has his boot stepped on. If a message is drilled home in the days leading to the next matchday, it's got to weigh on the mind.

PGMO and the Premier League pointed to a large decrease in year-on-year errors last season, when the Key Match Incidents Panel recorded just 18 mistakes (it was 31 in 2023-24). The perception among fans was very different -- and the opening weeks of this season have done little to persuade supporters that VAR is going in the right direction.

There's always going to be controversy, decisions which fans of the affected club will complain about loudly. That cannot be avoided. But you have to remove these huge mistakes, which result in near-universal condemnation and result in an official being dropped.

Kevin Blom, a FIFA referee from the Netherlands and experienced video official, was appointed as the new VAR performance coach at the start of the month. He'll now know exactly how much work needs to be done in the background.

- Olley: VAR controversy masks Chelsea's issues in win over Fulham
- Dawson: Any win will do for Amorim as Man United struggle

It probably didn't help the perceptions that Jones called it a "careless challenge" when announcing his decision. That's correct in referee speak, as a careless challenge is a foul with no card -- but it sounds worse. Sometimes it's better to describe something as a simple foul rather than get into the jargon. And get the decision right, of course.

The failure to send off Bournemouth's Marcos Senesi for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity on the first day of the season went under the radar because Liverpool won the game. This mistake, coming when the game was goalless, had a much greater impact and won't go away quite so easily.

Webb will present his first VAR show of the season on Tuesday. The head of referees hasn't ducked including the big errors, and we can expect this will feature.

Possible penalty: Handball by Sessegnon

What happened: Chelsea pushed forward in the 52nd minute, with Chalobah attempting to play the ball into the area. It was blocked by Ryan Sessegnon and referee Jones allowed play to continue as Moisés Caicedo dragged a shot wide. The VAR sent the referee to the monitor again to award a penalty for handball.

VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Enzo Fernández.

VAR review: This should have been a very simple VAR review. Sessegnon had an arm raised away from his body, creating a barrier, and he blocked a ball played into the area.

Yet after the controversy of the first half, it didn't go that smoothly, with the referee and VAR taking 3½ minutes from the ball going out of play until Jones announced his decision. Maybe that's doing the officials a slight disservice as there were a few things to look at, but the narrative had been set by the earlier error.

Jones was shown the ball touching the arm of João Pedro in the buildup, moments before the Sessegnon incident. Pedro's arm was a little away from the body, but in a justifiable position for his movement and he had his back to Kenny Tete, who kicked it onto his arm. Flip the roles here: Would we expect to see a penalty awarded for this? No. So we shouldn't expect a handball against an attacker either.

There was also a possible foul in the build up on Alex Iwobi, with foot-on-foot contact by Caicedo -- this time the VAR didn't suggest this was enough to be penalized, unlike Muniz.

Verdict: In isolation, this should have been an easy VAR intervention with little real controversy. But the length of the review, on the back of the first-half mistake, only feeds the lack of confidence in decision making.

Correct outcome, but it took too long.

Man United 3-2 Burnley

Possible penalty overturn: Challenge by Walker on Mount

What happened: Referee Sam Barrott awarded a penalty to Manchester United in the 16th minute when Kyle Walker was ruled to have brought down Mason Mount. It was checked by the VAR, Stuart Attwell.

VAR decision: Penalty canceled.

VAR review: There was no identifiable foul contact between Walker and Mount, and any that might have been present would have happened outside the area.

Verdict: We don't often see the VAR get involved when a penalty has been awarded with two players involved in upper body contact, but this was definitely an occasion where the intervention was correct.

Possible goal: Offside against Foster

What happened: Lyle Foster thought he had equalized for Burnley in the 59th minute, but the flag went up for offside after he put the ball into the net.

VAR decision: No goal.

play

0:28

How tight was Burnley's offside goal vs. Man United?

Take a look at the VAR decision for Lyle Foster's disallowed goal for Burnley vs. Manchester United.

VAR review: For all semi-automated offside's benefits in producing much quicker decisions, it still struggles to adequately visualize very tight decisions -- especially when it's not the foot or the head that's ahead of the last defender.

Most of Foster's upper arm was offside, a part of the body which is legal to play the ball with. This is shown by the red highlight of the arm in the animation.

No matter what method you use, regardless of any tolerance level, there's always going to very marginal calls at the point the line is crossed.

Verdict: With the Premier League using a 5-centimeter tolerance level in offside decisions, the animation doesn't move directly in line with the players. That's because a player could be seen to be just ahead of the offside line, but be given onside.

The angle is of little use on a decision such as this because it was impossible to see how Foster was offside. What the technology deems to be the final decision will be used, even if the picture doesn't seem definitive.

There are real similarities to the goal England's Alessia Russo had chalked off through VAR because Beth Mead was marginally offside against France at Euro 2025. There has to be a better way to show these.

Possible penalty: Challenge by Anthony on Amad

What happened: The game was into the second minute of added time when Amad looked to run onto a through ball from Bruno Fernandes. Amad went to ground and both Man United players appealed for a penalty for a shirt pull, but referee Barrott ignored the claims. The VAR took a look.

VAR decision: Penalty, scored by Fernandes.

VAR review: PGMO has made a point at clamping down on clear examples of holding that are a non-football action, and this fits right into that category.

The only question was whether Anthony was still grabbing Amad's shirt when he entered the area -- a holding offense is applied when it ends rather than when it starts. While the Burnley player and much of Amad's shirt was outside the area, his upper body was inside and that makes it a spot kick.

Verdict: We saw a few examples last season of exaggerated pulling of the shirt, or the holding of an opponent's arm, which didn't result in a VAR penalty. Think Chelsea's Wesley Fofana on West Ham United's Crysencio Summerville, or Nottingham Forest's Elliot Anderson on Aston Villa's Morgan Rogers. PGMO wants these to be punished.

It's very similar to the VAR penalty awarded to Newcastle United in April when Ipswich Town's Julio Enciso held back Jacob Murphy when he tried to run onto a pass.

Sunderland 2-1 Brentford

Possible penalty overturn: Holding by Reinildo on Collins

What happened: A ball was played into the area in the 57th minute, with Nathan Collins going to ground at the back post on a corner routine under pressure from Reinildo Mandava. Referee Anthony Taylor pointed to the spot.

VAR decision: Penalty stands, Kevin Schade shot saved by Robin Roefs.

VAR review: Reinildo wasn't looking at the ball, and his only interest was preventing Collins from becoming involved in the play.

There was no mutual holding, with the Sunderland player's focus on Collins.

Verdict: Much like the penalty awarded to Man United through VAR, this was another kind of holding offence which PGMO is trying to eradicate -- even if the foul happened when the attacker had no prospect of challenging for the ball.

Reinildo was very fortunate to escape without conceding a spot kick for similar holding on Collins in the first half.

Possible penalty overturn: Holding by Henry on Diarra

What happened: Sunderland were awarded their own spot kick in the 82nd minute when referee Taylor ruled that Rico Henry had pulled down Habib Diarra. It was checked by the VAR, Darren England.

VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Enzo Le Fée.

VAR review: Diarra went down very easily when he felt that Henry had both arms around him.

Verdict: This was a much softer penalty award than the spot kick given to Brentford, but the on-field decision was not going to be changed. This wouldn't have been given on VAR review, but wouldn't be overturned either.