PGMOL and the Premier League are opening up discussions between the referee and the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) for key incidents this season. In the latest instalment of "Match Officials Mic'd Up" in 2024/25, Howard Webb, chief operating officer at PGMOL, discusses five recent incidents.
Webb and Michael Owen go through the conversations between the match officials to give fans greater knowledge of how decisions are made. The officials on the pitch do not hear all the conversations from the VAR hub in Stockley Park.
The incidents covered are:
- Young's penalty overturned v Man Utd
- Zabarnyi's red card v Wolves
- Dorgu's red card v Ipswich
- Haaland's disallowed goal v Spurs
- Aina's handball v Newcastle
Young's penalty overturned v Man Utd
TV Info - Broadcasters
Incident: Idrissa Gueye's shot is saved by Andre Onana, and as Ashley Young goes for the rebound, there is contact by Harry Maguire and Matthijs de Ligt, with Young going down and a spot-kick being given.
What the match officials did: Referee Andy Madley awarded a penalty to Everton for a foul by Maguire on Young. The VAR checked the on-field decision and recommended that Madley reviewed his decision in the Referee Review Area (RRA). Upon review, Madley overturned the decision and restarted the match with a drop ball.
Owen: “Okay, Howard. So we'll move on to camera angles. De Ligt’s role in this, potential penalty as well in a moment. But let's go stage by stage. Harry Maguire, that's who the referee gave the penalty against. Should we clear that situation up first. Was there enough there to give a penalty in the first instance?"
Webb: “Yeah. It's important to start there Michael, because as you rightly said, and as we heard on the audio, the referee clearly penalised Maguire in this situation. He believed that Maguire pulled Young with his left hand. So the VAR knows that. And that's going to be the starting point of the check. The referee's call in this situation was a penalty to Everton for a foul by Maguire.
“When the VAR looks at that, he sees that Maguire hasn't done what the referee perceives him to have done in real time. He sees a touch, but not a pull by Maguire. Not, you know, a hold by Maguire. There's no lower body contact either. Young steps over Maguire's leg and then spreads his legs and goes to the ground forward.
“So it's not a foul by Maguire. The award of the penalty against Maguire is clearly and obviously wrong in our opinion. And also in the opinion of the VAR.”
Owen: “What I was most disappointed about were the angles that the VAR gave to the referee when he went to the screen. I felt that he gave this angle far too much and didn't spin around and have a look at some of the other angles.
“So I think it's quite difficult to spot there. But of course it's the De Ligt tug of the shirt that I think was the biggest question mark here. What did you think in terms of when he went to the monitor and got given multiple angles of this and wasn't really given the money shot?”
Webb: “Well, when checking the sequence, the VAR and the AVAR, you'll see them looking at this wide angle to give the view on Maguire. You'll hear the AVAR talk about De Ligt and asking a question. Does De Ligt commit an offence or not.
“So they're aware of De Ligt having potentially done something. They form the opinion that Maguire is not committing an offence, but then they go on to ask the referee at the screen to consider the actions of De Ligt.
"But I absolutely acknowledge and accept the angles that are presented to the referee at that point don't show clearly enough what De Ligt does. Not penalise on the field, of course, but they want to show it.
“But they need to show him some of these angles earlier when he gets to the screen, instead of staying on the wide angle, which doesn't really show as clearly as is, needs to be shown De Ligt’s actions.
"I'm not saying De Ligt’s actions are a foul. What they need to show this angle to be able to make that determination at the screen.
“And of course these angles were shown on broadcast. So the world is seeing these, and I guess that's where some of the criticism came from in terms of how this this process played out."
Owen: "Okay. And the De Ligt shirt pull, do you think that was enough to give a penalty in isolation?"
Webb: “Well, we've spoken during pre-season and during the season many times on this show about not all contacts are a foul. Just because you have a small tug it doesn't necessarily mean it's something you're going to penalise.
“We're trying to look for impact of that action and the way that Young falls forward. He spreads his legs. He kind of like throws himself forward somewhat in my opinion and it isn't commensurate with the amount of hold that you see from De Ligt.
"So we don't think this meets the threshold of a penalty in its own right. And that was certainly the view of the referee when he went to the screen and was shown momentarily the view from the angle behind the goal.
“But I accept that we should have shown not only that angle, but this angle that we can see here as well, so that he's able to make that full evaluation.
“And people at home watching this can see that he's had a full view of everything comes to the decision. I'm pretty certain he would come to the same decision anyway, but at least people would know that he's seen the full information.”
Zabarnyi's red card v Wolves
TV Info - Broadcasters
Incident: AFC Bournemouth's Illia Zabarnyi goes in for a sliding challenge on Rayan Ait-Nouri. However, Zabarnyi catches the Wolverhampton Wanderers player with his studs and is given a yellow card.
What the match officials did: Referee Michael Salisbury initially issued a yellow card. VAR checked the on-field incident and deemed the challenge to be serious foul play, and recommended Salisbury to review his decision in the Referee Review Area (RRA). Upon review, Salisbury overturned the decision and issued Zabarnyi a red card instead of a yellow.
Owen: "Okay Howard, so some people thought it was a little bit harsh. In fact, Bournemouth appealed the decision unsuccessfully. Why did you feel that was a red card?”
Webb: "What the picture shows is the studs going fully into that part of the leg above the ankle on the shin, with some speed and some intensity.
"I think maybe the people who thought it was harsh were those who consider the fact that the ball had been touched, it was undoubtedly a genuine attempt to win the ball cleanly.
"But I think Zabarnyi gets his action wrong, skims over the top of the ball and then with some force goes into that part of the leg above the ankle, causing the ankle to buckle.
"So when you see that type of action with studs going fully into that part of the leg, causing the ankle to buckle and the VAR looks at it in full speed, so you don't have that slow motion like distortion.
“He sees speed, intensity, force and endanger to the safety of that player. We have to look after player safety. We think this is a correct intervention for serious foul play."
Dorgu's red card v Ipswich
TV Info - Broadcasters
Incident: Omari Hutchinson receives a pass by the touchline and goes to control the ball. In an attempt to intercept, Manchester United's Patrick Dorgu comes in with a challenge, catching Hutchinson's shin with his studs.
What the match officials did: The VAR checked the on-field incident and deemed the challenge to be serious foul play, recommending referee Darren England to go to the Referee Review Area (RRA). Upon review, England issued a red card to Dorgu.
Owen: "Okay Howard, another one that caused a bit of debate. And in fact, in the VAR booth, a little bit of disagreement to start with, but then teamwork prevailed and they got to their final decision. It wasn't given as a foul on on the pitch either. Playing devil's advocate, the challenge was low. That's probably the only thing that you can say, you side with Dorgu there.
"But apart from that, there was force, there were studs, a straight leg. Did you think it warranted a straight red?"
Webb: "I did, having seen the video. I think what happened in real time on the field, I mean, the referee gave a throw-in.
"I was speaking to the fourth official who said that from their view, close by in the technical area, there was no real feel for a red card. I think the Ipswich technical area staff didn't react to it either, and the VAR probably got a feeling on the video initially seen in real time that it wasn't going to be much, hence the reason he was surprised when he saw it on the video.
“When you see the video, for all the reasons you've said, you know the studs from a straight leg going into an opponent's leg quite high, it's undoubtedly excessive force and danger for that player's safety.
"So a good example of why VAR is important, to use the video at full speed as well, to get the intensity and come out with a correct red card.”
Haaland's disallowed goal v Spurs
TV Info - Broadcasters
Incident: Erling Haaland plays a quick one-two with Phil Foden. Foden's return pass to Haaland is handled by the Norweigan, who then gets past Tottenham Hotspur defenders Kevin Danso and Archie Gray before scoring.
What the match officials did: Referee Jarred Gillett disallowed the goal for a handball by Erling Haaland. VAR checked the incident and found no conclusive evidence, so the on-field decision stood and the goal was disallowed.
Owen: “No conclusive evidence. Now I hear that, and I guess the processes were all right. But from a striker's point of view, strikers union and all that, if I score a goal and it's not conclusive that it's touched my arm, I’m absolutely fuming about that being taken away from me.”
Webb: "Yeah, I can imagine. This is another example of how the on-field decision is really important. The referee's call, we know because of the way the law is written, that if this ball does touch, just touch Erling Haaland's arm, then the goal has to be disallowed because he scores immediately. So all that we have to have is that touch. On field, the officials believe that's what happened.
“They must have been certain at the time, and penalised. So then the job of the VAR is not to establish whether that touch happened. They are trying to establish for certain that it didn't to be able to intervene. And if they aren't certain that it didn't touch the arm then they can't do anything other than say 'check complete'.
“So I understand why it might feel harsh taking the goal away. We always want to give goals, but once the decision has been given on-field, we can't really do anything else than check complete this without the evidence it hasn't touched the arm. If this goal had been given, it would have also been check complete for the goal.”
Aina's handball v Newcastle
TV Info - Broadcasters
Incident: Nottingham Forest defender Ola Aina leaps to block Lewis Hall's cross, and as he jumps, he spins his body, leading to the ball being blocked by his arm.
What the match officials did: VAR checked the on-field incident and recommended referee Jarred Gillett to go to the Referee Review Area (RRA). Upon review, Gillett awarded a penalty for handball.
Owen: “Not many penalties given for this type of thing this season, which I've really liked. A big change from previous seasons. But they all got involved in this one. The right thing to do?”
Webb: "Yeah, we’ve continued to deliver the officiating of handball in the way that the game asked us to, less is more, you know, not penalising players who are moving in a pretty natural way. We know the arms move as players move.
“Of course, trying to identify those situations where there's a clear, deliberate action to handle or the player puts his arms in a really unnatural position, making himself bigger that's not justifiable.
“We think this one falls into that last category. As Aina jumps, his arm comes away from his body, blocks the ball, blocks the cross by Hall, and we think this is a good use of VAR to rectify a miss on the field. And, yeah, for us, it's a clear handball offence.”
Glossary of terms
VAR: Video Assistant Referee; AVAR: Assistant Video Assistant Referee; RO: replay operator; APP: attacking phase of play.
UK users can watch the whole "Match Officials Mic'd Up" video on Sky Sports and TNT Sports. International users can access the full video with their local rights-holder.
