The VAR Review: Eze's disallowed goal; Senesi red card at Liverpool?

Open Extended Reactions

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: Eberechi Eze's disallowed free kick for Crystal Palace at Chelsea, Marcos Senesi's possible red card against Liverpool, and Manchester United's late penalty claim vs. Arsenal.

March Guéhi moves into the wall as it was struck by Eberechi Eze. JUSTIN TALLIS/AFP via Getty Images

Possible disallowed goal: Guéhi too close to wall

What happened: Eberechi Eze fired Crystal Palace into the lead in the 13th minute, powering a free kick past goalkeeper Robert Sánchez. However, the VAR, James Bell, had identified an infringement in the wall and sent referee Darren England to the pitchside monitor. (watch here)

VAR decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR review: Way back in 2019, when the law was changed to state that attackers must be at least one metre away from a defensive wall of three or more players, I was told this offence was considered part of the restart and not part of VAR's remit. Indeed, you'll find several references to this in my articles over the years. Fast forward 2,286 Premier League games, and many others in top-level European competition, and there was no reason to think that wasn't the case. After all, across all those matches not once had the VAR stepped in because of this.

However, the position of an attacking player close to the wall is reviewable. Restarts cannot be reviewed, but this -- much like encroachment on a penalty -- isn't considered a restart offence, e.g. foul throw, moving ball. So, in game 2,287, Crystal Palace became the unlucky first in the Premier League.

It's not totally unknown. Earlier this month, in Europa League qualifying, FC Noah controversially had a stoppage-time winner against Lincoln Red Imps ruled out by Slovakian VAR Martin Dohál as Artak Dashyan ran directly in front of the wall as Oulad Omar struck a free kick. (watch here)

Verdict: You can't say this was a wrong decision, because at the point the free kick was struck Palace defender Marc Guéhi had pushed Moisés Caicedo across and into the wall. There can be no doubt that Guéhi was within one metre of the wall, and the law says that's an offence.

What you can question is whether the VAR should be getting involved. After all, it's not like an attacker hasn't been within one metre of a wall on a free kick in the last six years.

In January on this very ground, AFC Bournemouth boss Andoni Iraola was furious that a late Chelsea free kick, which earned the home side a 2-2 draw, wasn't ruled out. Marc Cucurella moved into Antoine Semenyo on the end of the Bournemouth wall, but the goal stood.

Cucurella's actions didn't impact the goal, as Reece James curled a shot low into the opposite corner. Yet you could argue that Caicedo wasn't part of the wall which was originally set up.

Reece James' goal stood against Bournemouth even though Marc Cucurella had moved close to the ball. NBC

With VAR, the over-riding judgement is about impact, rather than a strict application. Many would argue that as Guéhi pushed Caicedo to create the hole through which Eze scored this should be seen as a valid intervention. But equally, it does feel like an over-reach when it has never been penalised, especially with the light-touch approach in English football.

Think of it this way: had the goal stood, would anyone have claimed the goal should have been disallowed based on the one-metre rule? It feels unlikely.

If it was deemed a foul had taken place before the ball was in play it would be possible for the VAR to intervene, and the restart would be a retaken free kick.

Marc Guéhi moved Moisés Caicedo across and into the wall to create the space for Eze to score. BBC

The VAR, who has come through the dedicated training programme, was appointed to his first match in Gameweek 29 last season, and is viewed as one of the most promising in the system. This was Bell's 10th game, so since that debut there's only been one gameweek when he hasn't been selected. No doubt there will be a deep discussion in group training this week about this kind of situation.

Possible penalty: Challenge by Sánchez on Guéhi

What happened: Palace had a throw-in deep into first half stoppage time, and delivered long into the box to Guéhi. Goalkeeper Sánchez came out to challenge, and made some contact with the head of the Palace player. Should there have been a penalty to Palace?

VAR decision: No penalty.

Robert Sánchez makes contact with the head of Marc Guéhi when coming to punch a high ball. BBC

VAR review: Did Guéhi get to the ball first and get punched by the goalkeeper, or did the two players simultaneously play the ball and Guéhi get clattered as a result? And how much contact was there anyway?

The VAR's judgement would primarily be guided by the way Sánchez has made the challenge -- as it wasn't reckless, a regular attempt to play the ball is unlikely to result in a VAR intervention.

There are similarities to a penalty claim for Arsenal in their 1-0 defeat to Internazionale in the UEFA Champions League last season -- though in that case there was much more contact by Yann Sommer with the head of Mikel Merino. That, too, wasn't given through VAR.

Arsenal didn't get a VAR penalty in similar circumstances at Inter Milan last season. Fabrizio Carabelli/PA Images via Getty Images

Verdict: As it looked like Sánchez may have got a touch on the ball around the same time as Guéhi, which is a major influence on a VAR decision. It would have been a major surprise had the VAR got involved on this.

Possible red card: DOGSO by Senesi

What happened: Liverpool were on the attack in the 13th minute when Mohamed Salah tried to play in Hugo Ekitike. Bournemouth defender Marcos Senesi intercepted the pass, but seemed to commit a handball which prevented the striker running through on goal. Referee Anthony Taylor didn't spot it, and actually gave handball against Cody Gakpo a few seconds later. The VAR, Michael Oliver, considered a possible red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO) against Senesi.

VAR decision: No red card.

Marcos Senesi deliberately swipes at the ball with his hand. Michael Steele/Getty Images

VAR review: The ball was in contact with Sensi's arm two times. The first when it rebounded off his thigh onto his arm, which was in an expected position. And then when Senesi made a deliberate swipe to knock the ball out of Ekitike's path.

Oliver was too concerned with the first touch on the arm, which was clearly accidental and wouldn't be considered DOGSO, and didn't notice the actual second handball for the offence

Verdict: The incident was cleared too quickly, with Oliver only considering the first touch of the arm. This was clearly wrong as Senesi then deliberately knocked the ball from Ekitike's run.

DOGSO on the halfway line is rare, but not unknown: Arsenal's Myles Lewis-Skelly was sent off against West Ham United last season through as VAR intervention. Senesi should have been shown the red card; only Liverpool's two late goals to secure the win prevented this being a bigger talking point.

There would be a question about a possible covering defender, but no more than that. There should have been a VAR intervention as the clear likelihood is Ekitike would take control of the ball and be in on goal.

Across 15 VAR appointments and 35 key match incidents last season, Oliver only had one mistake -- though it was a big one: West Ham's late penalty which gave them a 2-1 win over Manchester United.

Hugo Ekitike would have been through on goal, and this should have been a red card for DOGSO. BBC

Possible penalty: Challenge by Saliba on Cunha

What happened: Manchester United were pushing for a late equaliser when Matthijs de Ligt played the ball towards goal. Matheus Cunha took possession, and appealed for penalty after being challenged from behind by William Saliba. Referee Simon Hooper let play continue and it was looked at by the VAR, Paul Tierney.

VAR decision: No penalty.

Was the contact by William Saliba on Matheus Cunha enough for a VAR intervention? BBC

VAR review: It's an incident which has split opinion, and will depend how you look at the way the two players are moving.

Saliba's challenge appeared to be more of a blocking action rather than into the opponent, while Cunha was moving backwards.

Yet it was Cunha who was taking possession of the ball, and he could have had the opportunity to control and turn if Saliba hadn't made the contact and caused the attacker to go down.

Verdict: It's a challenge which is open to interpretation, and it was quickly cleared by the VAR. It's one of those incidents which needs to be given by the referee -- and whatever he has decided on the field would be supported.

Possible penalty: Ayari challenge on King

What happened: Josh King had the ball inside the area in the 64th minute when he was challenged by Yasin Ayari. Referee Sam Barrott allowed play to continue and a possible penalty was checked by the VAR, Matt Donohue.

VAR decision: No penalty.

Yasin Ayari makes contact on the foot of Josh King rather than the ball. BBC

VAR review: Ayari doesn't get a touch on the ball before making contact with King's foot, so there's a case for a penalty.

Verdict: Is this clear enough to award a penalty through a VAR intervention? Probably not, but there's no doubt it would have remained a spot kick if awarded by the referee, just like with Cunha.

These kind of incidents are always a question of impact, and the VAR felt there wasn't enough in it to change the on-field decision. In general, that seems in line with Premier League threshold.

Possible penalty: Handball by Milambo

What happened: Elliot Anderson delivered a free kick into the box from the left flank, which hit Brentford's Antoni Milambo. The ball went behind for a corner, with Forest asking for a penalty. It was checked by the VAR, Andy Madley. (watch here)

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: Does Milambo move his arm to the ball? Or is it a natural movement as he tries to flick it away with his right boot?

Verdict: The angles available for the VAR weren't great, which always makes an intervention less likely. The referee probably didn't have good view either, and it was on the opposite side of the pitch for the assistant.

There's not enough evidence in the pictures to be certain there was a handball offence.

Possible penalty overturn: Handball by Sangaré

What happened: Brentford were awarded a penalty in the 76th minute when the ball came off the arm of Ibrahim Sangaré, but should the VAR have intervened?

VAR decision: Penalty stands, scored by Thiago.

VAR review: The first handball penalty of the season came in the very first gameweek, after only nine were awarded in the whole of last season.

The movement of Sangaré's arm to a high ball persuaded referee Peter Bankes that it was a deliberate act.

Verdict: With the Premier League's lenient interpretation of handball, Sangaré can probably consider himself unlucky as another referee may view the contact as natural movement and accidental (while he wasn't looking at the ball) -- and the VAR wouldn't have got involved. But as soon as this has been given on the field, it's not likely to get overturned.

Referee Peter Bankes gave handball against Ibrahim Sangaré. BBC

Possible penalty: Challenge by Porro on Anthony

What happened: Kyle Walker played a pass across the box which was in front of Jaidon Anthony. Pedro Porro was running back and clashed with the Burnley attacker, but referee Michael Oliver wasn't interested in a penalty. There was a quick check from the VAR, Neil Davies.

VAR decision: No penalty.

Click here to read article