Gameweek 4 in the Premier League was yet another one filled with controversial calls.
In this VAR corner piece, we take a look a four huge calls over the weekend that have sparked heated debates all over social media
The Incident: Kai Havertz goes down in the box after a challenge from Aaaron Wan Bissaka. Referee awards a penalty but changes his decision after reviewing the footage on the monitor (Arsenal 3-1 Man Utd).
Havertz’s run into the box appeared, at first glance,to have been impeded after he was sandwiched by Wan Bissaka and Casemiro. Referee, Anthony Taylor, in his conversation with the VAR officials said he awarded the penalty because he believed the German was clipped when AWB planted his foot. However, there was no contact at this point. It was instead adjudged that when the slight contact did happen, Havertz initiated it. So when Taylor reviewed the footage, he opted to reverse the call.
Verdict: Not a penalty. The contact on Havertz was very minimal and so it should not have been given as a penalty.
The Incident: Garnacho runs through on goal and scores for Man Utd but the goal is ruled out for offside after a VAR check. (Arsenal 3-1 Man Utd).
A lot has been made about the lines that were shown for TV and how they were inconclusive but I think that angle show was rather misleading. A better would have shown that the decision was actually not as close as it seemed. Garnacho looked to have strayed beyond Arsenal’s Gabriel, who had checked his run back, on first viewing and further viewings of the move have enhanced this opinion.
Verdict: Not a goal. Garnacho was correctly ruled offside.
The Incident: Ake heads the ball, it bounces past Manuel Akanji who was standing in front of goalkeeper, Bernd Leno (though not directly) and into the back of the net (Man City 5-1 Fulham).
What IFAB’s rules say: “An attacker in an offside position (A) is clearly obstructing the goalkeeper’s line of vision. The player must be penalised for preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball.”
Akanji might not have touched the ball but his action certainly made Leno hesitate before making a dive to the right.
Verdict: Not a goal. Akanji was in an offside position and clearly impeded Leno’s ability to save the ball. The goal should have been disallowed by VAR.
The Incident: Luton’s corner kick is missed by two players and hits the arm of James Ward-Prowse who is jumping. Neither the on-field referee nor the VAR official deem it a penalty. (Luton 1-2 West Ham).
What IFAB’s rules say: “It is a handball offence when a player touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation.”
VAR deemed that Ward-Prowse’s arm was in that position justifiably because he was jumping.
Verdict: Not a penalty
References to IFAB Laws of the Game 23/24
