Recent VAR decisions in the Premier League have sparked debate over consistency in penalty calls. Understanding VAR's criteria for intervention is crucial for fans and players alike.

VAR's Role in Penalty Decisions

The weekend saw a series of VAR-related penalty decisions in the Premier League, highlighting the system's complexities. VAR's primary function is not to ensure uniformity in decision-making but to evaluate specific incidents based on the referee's call. This leads to varying outcomes for seemingly similar situations. For instance, Manchester City was awarded a penalty against Liverpool after Jeremy Doku was brought down by goalkeeper Giorgi Mamardashvili. Although the contact was minimal, VAR intervened, leading to a penalty being awarded. This decision raises questions about the consistency of VAR's application across different incidents.

Understanding "Contact with Consequence"

A critical aspect of VAR's decision-making is the concept of "contact with consequence." This term refers to how the attacker reacts to contact during a challenge. In Doku's case, he attempted to maintain his balance and continue playing, which influenced VAR's decision to award the penalty. In contrast, Dan Burn's challenge on Dango Ouattara did not result in a penalty. Ouattara's theatrical fall was seen as an attempt to deceive the referee, which negatively impacted his case during the VAR review. The difference in how each player went to ground played a significant role in the final decisions.

Panel Insights on Penalty Calls

The Premier League's key match incidents (KMI) panel often reviews contentious penalty decisions. In one instance, a penalty awarded to Arsenal against Leeds was deemed incorrect by the panel, despite the on-field referee's call. The panel noted that the contact was too slight to warrant a penalty, illustrating the challenges fans face in understanding VAR's judgments. Similarities between incidents can lead to confusion. Both Ouattara and Max Dowman experienced minor contact, yet only one was awarded a penalty. The KMI panel's unanimous agreement on VAR's non-intervention in Dowman's case further complicates the perception of fairness in VAR decisions.

Exceptions to VAR Rules

While VAR generally does not review yellow cards, there are exceptions. For example, Brighton's Georginio Rutter was booked for simulation after initiating contact with a Palace player. VAR correctly overturned the penalty, demonstrating its ability to address clear cases of deception. However, the limitations of VAR are evident when it comes to reviewing yellow cards for simulation. A player like Ouattara cannot have his yellow card rescinded unless VAR deems a penalty should have been awarded. This inconsistency can frustrate players and fans alike.

Future Changes to VAR Regulations

Starting next season, VAR will allow for the review of second yellow cards, creating a new layer of complexity. This means a player could have a caution for simulation overturned if it is their second booking, but not for their first. Additionally, there are scenarios where yellow cards can be rescinded, such as when a penalty is canceled after a foul. If Burn's penalty had been overturned, he would have avoided a second yellow card. These evolving rules indicate that VAR's role in the Premier League continues to develop, aiming for greater clarity and fairness in officiating.