VAR assessment: Was Liverpool justified in their penalty claim? Was Szoboszlai’s red card warranted?

The video assistant referee generates debate weekly in the Premier League, but what is the decision-making process and are the outcomes accurate?

This season, we will analyze significant incidents to clarify the procedures regarding VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

Screenshot credit: NBC

Andy Davies (@andydaviesref), a former Select Group referee, boasts over 12 seasons on the elite list, officiating in both the Premier League and Championship. With vast experience at the top level, he has worked within the VAR framework in the Premier League and provides valuable insight into the processes, reasoning, and protocols applied during a Premier League matchday.

Liverpool 1-2 Manchester City

Referee: Craig Pawson
VAR: John Brooks

This match was an exciting encounter where Liverpool initially took the lead, but Manchester City responded with two unanswered goals to secure a 2-1 victory. The result for Manchester City altered the dynamics of the Premier League title race, while Liverpool’s defeat represented a setback in their pursuit of Champions League qualification.

Clearly, this was a crucial match with significant implications, and several penalty decisions and non-decisions greatly influenced the game’s outcome. There were three pivotal incidents requiring major calls from the referee and VAR, so let’s examine them all…

Time: 68th minute
Incident: A potential red card for Man City’s Marc Guéhi for DOGSO (denial of a goalscoring opportunity)

What happened: Mohamed Salah received a pass from teammate Dominik Szoboszlai, breaking through the Manchester City defense, and Guéhi brought Salah down as he approached the goal. Referee Pawson awarded a free kick and issued a yellow card to Guéhi. Liverpool appealed for a penalty, but VAR concurred with the on-field decision.

VAR decision: The referee’s ruling of a free kick and yellow card for Guéhi’s challenge on Salah was reviewed and upheld by VAR. Since the challenge occurred outside the penalty area, it was determined not to be DOGSO due to the presence of a covering defender.

VAR review: The rationale provided by the on-field officials would have formed the basis for this review. For any potential overturn in this case, VAR would need conclusive evidence that the holding offense denied a clear goalscoring opportunity rather than a likely one. The trajectory of Salah and the positioning of the City defender introduced a degree of uncertainty for VAR, leading to the confirmation of the on-field decision.

Verdict: Analyzing the specifics of this situation reveals it to be marginal, and it is reasonable to classify this as a “ref’s call,” as it was on the day.

Two significant factors for the officiating team that may have contributed to uncertainty include Salah’s capacity to shoot immediately had the hold not occurred, along with the location of the covering defender.

In a DOGSO scenario where the outcome is not definitive, the refereeing team will have an instinct about the appropriate decision—this instance was no exception.

The outcome could have gone either way, but VAR was justified in not intervening in this ruling.

Time: 90th+1 minute
Incident: A penalty kick awarded to Manchester City

What happened: Man City’s Matheus Nunes was fouled by Liverpool goalkeeper Alisson Becker after Nunes managed to touch the ball past the advancing keeper.

VAR decision: The referee’s penalty decision was reviewed and confirmed by VAR, with Alisson found to have made significant contact with Nunes without playing the ball.

VAR review: This was a straightforward assessment for John Brooks, the video assistant referee. The communication between referee Pawson and his assistant would have clarified what the replays indicated, making it a simple check. The only aspect requiring confirmation from Brooks was to verify that the ball remained in play at the time of contact between Alisson and Nunes.

Verdict: The referee’s decision to award a penalty to Manchester City after Alisson’s collision with Nunes was correct. Alisson was late, failed to make contact with the ball, and a penalty was the appropriate and anticipated outcome.

Time: 90th+10 minute
Incident: VAR intervened to overturn a Man City goal and send off Liverpool defender Dominik Szoboszlai for DOGSO.

What happened: With Liverpool’s goalkeeper advanced and pursuing a late equalizer, Manchester City forward Rayan Cherki shot towards an unguarded net. Man City’s Erling Haaland and Liverpool’s Szoboszlai raced for the ball, with Haaland appearing to have the advantage.

The City striker had outpaced Szoboszlai as he entered the final attacking third when he was pulled back by the Liverpool defender, an evident foul to prevent Haaland from reaching the loose ball.

The foul was clear and acknowledged by referee Pawson; however, he allowed play to continue as the ball was about to cross the goal line regardless of any infringement.

As the ball rolled towards the empty net, the now-advanced Liverpool defender attempted to slide in and clear it, but before Szoboszlai could make contact, Haaland pulled him back, preventing Szoboszlai from playing the ball, and the ball rolled into the empty net.

Referee Pawson awarded the goal to Manchester City.

VAR decision: Following a VAR review, the referee reversed the initial decision of a goal for Manchester City.

<pThe referee's exact announcement was: "After review, there is a careless foul by Erling Haaland that pulls the shirt of Dominik Szoboszlai. Prior to that, Szoboszlai commits a holding offense that denies an obvious goalscoring opportunity. The final decision is a direct free kick to Manchester City and a red card."

VAR review: VAR John Brooks would have quickly recognized that this was going to be a complicated review given the circumstances.

Each of the two holding offenses would have been assessed individually by Brooks, comparing the on-field rationale that led to the goal being awarded against the factual replay.

The holding offense by Haaland was the starting point, as a goal cannot be permitted to stand after such a clear foul by an attacker—thus, an on-field review was recommended to disallow the City goal due to the foul.

Subsequently, once the goal was disallowed by the referee at the monitor, VAR would present Pawson with replays of Szoboszlai’s clear holding offense, which denied Haaland an obvious goalscoring opportunity, suggesting a red card for the Liverpool defender.

The sequence of events was compiled for Pawson to review at the monitor, and after considering the information and replays provided by VAR, Pawson concurred with Brooks, correctly disallowing the goal and issuing a red card to the Liverpool player.

Verdict: This is a unique scenario that may not be well-received or understood by football fans. However, the laws of the game left VAR and ultimately the referee with no alternative.

The pull by Haaland, which prevented Szoboszlai from clearing the ball, must be penalized, leading to the original offense being assessed and a red card correctly issued to the Liverpool defender.

This undoubtedly presented a challenging situation for both VAR and the referee, as they would have been aware of the potential fallout post-match. However, disregarding the law in favor of a more acceptable and understandable outcome in such a complex situation, with Manchester City already leading, was not an option, and that goal could prove crucial by the season’s end.