VAR analysis: What led to the reversal of Manchester United’s penalty and the awarding of a free kick?
The video assistant referee generates debate each week in the Premier League, but what is the decision-making process and is it accurate?
This season, we will analyze significant incidents to clarify and elucidate the procedure, considering both VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.
Andy Davies (@andydaviesref), a former Select Group referee, has over 12 seasons of experience on the elite list, officiating in both the Premier League and Championship. With considerable expertise at the top level, he has worked within the VAR framework in the Premier League and provides a distinctive perspective on the processes, reasoning, and protocols implemented on a Premier League matchday.
Manchester United 3-2 Fulham
Referee: John Brooks
VAR: James Bell
Time: 16 minutes
Incident: Factual VAR overturn
What happened: Manchester United was initially given a penalty for a supposed foul on Matheus Cunha by Fulham defender Jorge Cuenca, but the VAR reversed this decision, awarding a free kick outside the box instead.
VAR decision: Following the VAR review, the referee changed his on-field ruling of a penalty for Manchester United and awarded a free kick, stating: “After review, the Fulham No. 15 commits a holding offence outside the penalty area. The final decision is a free kick to Manchester United.”
VAR review: The live communication from referee Brooks was crucial to this review. Brooks indicated that he had observed a holding offence that began outside the penalty area and continued inside, leading him to initially award a penalty kick. Many fans perceived that the penalty was given for the challenge by Cuenca on Cunha, where the Fulham player clearly made contact with the ball.
The VAR’s assessment concentrated on the upper-body contact mentioned by referee Brooks. However, contrary to Brooks’ communication, the VAR concluded that the contact occurred entirely outside the penalty area, making the penalty award factually incorrect and necessitating an overturn.
A secondary check by VAR regarding Cuenca’s challenge was conducted swiftly, followed by a message to Brooks to reverse his original decision.
Verdict: The justification for penalizing the holding offence can be discussed. This instance was certainly at the lower end of the threshold, and it will attract attention due to the penalty overturn and the fact that United scored from the subsequent free kick.
If the holding offence had occurred inside the box, it would have been reviewed by VAR as a foul. However, since it did not, it was merely a factual overturn regarding the foul’s location and did not necessitate the referee’s review at the monitor.
A correct outcome.
