VAR review: Why Arsenal should have had a penalty vs. Everton

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

This season, 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.

Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, with over 12 seasons on the elite list, working across the Premier League and Championship. With extensive experience at the elite level, he has operated within the VAR space in the Premier League and offers a unique insight into the processes, rationale and protocols that are delivered on a Premier League matchday.

Arsenal 2-0 Everton

Referee: Andy Madley
VAR: Stuart Attwell
Time: 23rd minute
Incident: Possible penalty for Arsenal

What happened: Arsenal thought they should have been awarded a penalty in the first half when Michael Keane appeared to tread on the Achilles of Kai Havertz as the Arsenal attacker entered the penalty area. Referee Madley ignored the appeals, with VAR agreeing with the on-field decision.

VAR decision: The referee's call of no penalty to Arsenal was checked and confirmed by VAR, with the contact from Keane on Havertz deemed to be minimal.

VAR review: The VAR had to consider if replays showed a different story to the detail described by the referee Madley or his rationale as to why a penalty was not awarded on field. Madley apparently didn't deem the contact by Keane sufficient enough to stop Havertz in his tracks, he described the level of contact as minimal and not impactful on the Arsenal attacker's ability to continue his run and possible shot on goal. VAR agreed with the on-field rationale and cleared the call of no penalty.

Verdict: It's difficult to understand the non-intervention by VAR in this situation as the contact by Keane, whilst not at a high level, was impactful on Havertz's ability to progress and have a shot at goal. By stepping on the Achilles of Havertz, who was ahead of the defender, consideration of the level of contact is irrelevant and must be deemed a foul in this type of situation. I am not convinced by the official reasoning for the penalty not being awarded, I felt that referee Madley judged the contact as normal, with two players making accidental contact as they were both running in the same direction with no-one instigating contact, which is understandable in real-time. However, the pictures showed a different dynamic and an on-field review should have been recommended and a penalty awarded.

A note on the Chelsea huddle and Paul Tierney

Chelsea 0-1 Newcastle United

A huddle in the centre of the pitch is a practice that Liam Rosenior's side have used before games in recent weeks. But this time referee Tierney was standing on the centre circle and was subsequently caught in the middle of Chelsea's huddle, holding the match ball.

The more I watch referee Tierney in the middle of the Chelsea team huddle, the less I am convinced by his decision to stand and hold his ground over the match ball.

Referees do their homework, Tierney would have known that the Chelsea huddle was going to happen and with Newcastle due to have kick-off, his mindset was to be proactive and defuse any possible issues with the opposition. However, his decision to stand over the match ball as the Chelsea players locked arms around him and not move to a more neutral position is difficult to understand and increased the profile of the situation unnecessarily.

The Chelsea players didn't seem worried by Tierney's presence as they continued with their pre-match ritual, in-fact I would be surprised if they hadn't been pre-warned by Tierney in the pre-match meeting that he would take up this position if Newcastle had decided to start the match. Regardless, the optics didn't look great for the PGMO, Premier League or Tierney.

It was a ridiculous situation that could and should have been managed differently.