The Premier League Match Centre team provides further information and context on the key operational and officiating themes from the match rounds leading up to the international break.
What is denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO)?
A key talking point from Matchweek 8 was William Saliba’s red card during Arsenal’s match away to AFC Bournemouth at the Vitality Stadium.
Following a misplaced pass from Leandro Trossard, Saliba brought down Evanilson, who had a clear run towards goal. Saliba was shown a yellow card by the referee, who communicated at the time to the on-field team of officials that Ben White being a “covering defender” was the primary mitigating factor for the caution for stopping a promising attack.
The VAR then had to consider whether the referee’s call was a clear and obvious error. There are four considerations for DOGSO (see the below pages from the Orange Handbook):
The VAR determined that the ball was moving towards goal and into Evanilson’s path, meaning that he was highly likely to gain control of it, while White was too far away to be considered a covering defender and the goalkeeper was back-pedalling. Therefore, the VAR deemed that there was clear evidence of a missed red card for DOGSO and recommended an on-field review. The VAR used both full-speed and slow-motion to arrive at this recommendation, which resulted in the referee overturning the original decision and upgrading the yellow to a red card.
This incident was compared to a challenge made by Tosin Adarabioyo on Diogo Jota during Liverpool’s match with Chelsea at Anfield during the same match round. The referee issued a yellow card to Tosin and the VAR checked and confirmed the referee’s call. In this situation, the VAR deemed that this was a possible goal-scoring opportunity rather than an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, with Chelsea defender Levi Colwill very close to the challenge and the ball clearly moving away from the goal.
Additionally, there were calls for Leon Bailey to be shown a red card for a DOGSO offence during Aston Villa’s clash with Liverpool in match round 11. The Villa forward appeared to bring down Mohamed Salah, who was moving towards goal and in control of the ball, but the referee allowed play to continue having not identified that a foul had been committed. A few moments later, Liverpool’s Darwin Nunez gained control of the ball and scored.
As a goal had been scored, the VAR only had to check the attacking possession phase (APP) and wasn’t required to go back further and check any further potential offences. In this specific situation, if Nunez hadn’t scored, the VAR would have been able to check for a potential DOGSO offence against Bailey.
When is a goalkeeper in control of the ball?
Jean-Philippe Mateta put the ball in the net late on during Crystal Palace’s match with Wolverhampton Wanderers in match round 10, but the goal was ruled out and the referee awarded a free-kick to Wolves after deeming that goalkeeper Jose Sa was challenged by Daniel Munoz when he was in control of the ball with his hands in the build-up.
The International Football Association Board (IFAB), who are responsible for the Laws of the Game, clarify that a goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
- The ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save.
- Holding the ball in the outstretched open hand.
- Bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air.
They add that a goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s). In this situation, the VAR checked and confirmed the referee’s call, as the ball is between Sa’s hand and the ground when contact is made by Munoz.
When is an offside player interfering with play?
Match round 8 saw Manchester City score late on against Wolverhampton Wanderers through John Stones. The goal was initially disallowed on-field, with the assistant referee adjudging that Bernardo Silva was in an offside position and in the goalkeeper’s line of vision.
That decision was checked by the VAR, who deemed that while Silva was in an offside position, he wasn’t preventing Sa from being able to play the ball and he was not obstructing his line of vision. Therefore, with evidence that the referee’s call was likely to be a clear and obvious error, the VAR recommended an on-field review, which resulted in the referee overturning the original decision and a goal being awarded.
Most offside situations do not require the referee to review at the pitch-side monitor as they are matter of fact with an attacker in an offside position being penalised for playing/touching the ball in the process of scoring. This incident involves a subjective judgement of interfering with an opponent; therefore the referee reviewed the footage at the monitor.
The IFAB state that it is not an offence to be in an offside position – a player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touch* by a team-mate is only penalised when:
- Interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touch by a team-mate.
- Interfering with an opponent.
There are four factors to consider for penalising a player in an offside position interfering with an opponent (as per the Orange Handbook).
The process around establishing an offside offence and when the above factors can be considered is vital in this situation. Players cannot be offside from a corner kick, so during the ball flight, Silva could only be penalised for a foul on Sa. The considerations come into play when Stones heads the ball, but at the point of contact Silva is out of Sa’s line of vision and down to his side, therefore not committing an offside offence.
On-field and VAR performance
The independent Key Match Incident (KMI) Panel was introduced in Season 2022/23, with the panel members responsible for providing analysis and an independent assessment of both on-field and VAR decisions.
The KMI panel has deemed that the on-field accuracy of officials in the Premier League has improved this season. It is adjudged that 89 per cent of on-field decisions have been correct before the use of VAR during the first 11 match rounds, a seven per cent increase from the 82 per cent at the same stage of the 2023/24 campaign.
In addition, the KMI Panel has deemed that there have been three VAR errors during the first 11 match rounds of the 2024/25 season, a decrease from the 16 errors at the same stage of the 2023/24 campaign.
Lastly, VAR efficiency has also improved in the Premier League this season – the average VAR delay to matches in Season 2024/25 currently stands at 36 seconds per match, a significant reduction on the average delay of 64 seconds per match across the 2023/24 campaign.
