The VAR Review: Why Jackson was sent off for throwing an elbow, but Mings escaped

Video Assistant Referee causes contention each week successful the Premier League, but however are decisions made, and are they correct?

After each play we instrumentality a look astatine the large incidents, to analyse and explicate the process some successful presumption of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

In this week's VAR Review: How did Aston Villa's Tyrone Mings flight a reddish paper for an elbow, yet Chelsea striker Nicolas Jackson was sent off? Why didn't Matheus Cunha spot reddish for denial of a goal-scoring opportunity? And should Brentford person been awarded aggregate penalties for holding astatine Ipswich Town?

Newcastle 2-0 Chelsea

Possible reddish card: Violent behaviour by Jackson

What happened: Goalkeeper Robert Sánchez launched a agelong shot guardant successful the 33rd minute. Nicolas Jackson looked to situation Newcastle United defender Sven Botman, and sent him crashing to the ground. The referee, John Brooks, gave a yellowish paper but it was looked astatine by the VAR, Darren England, for a imaginable reddish card. (watch here)

VAR decision: Red card.

VAR review: This was much of a talking constituent owed to Aston Villa's Tyrone Mings escaping a reddish paper aft catching AFC Bournemouth's Alex Scott successful the look connected Saturday. The 2 are intelligibly comparable, but with subtle differences which marque the last outcomes justifiable.

When Sánchez plays the pass, Jackson has plentifulness of clip to marque a determination astir however he's going to situation Botman (the VAR showed the referee this astatine afloat velocity respective times); Jackson besides had a look to spot wherever the hostile was. As the shot was dropping, the Chelsea attacker ran into the Netherlands planetary with his elbow leading, efficaciously pointing into the opponent.

It was an evident lawsuit of a "use excessive unit oregon brutality," and a beauteous elemental convulsive behaviour involution for the VAR.

So wherefore was it antithetic to Mings? Crucially, the Aston Villa defender could beryllium considered to performing a mean footballing enactment successful attempting to shield the ball. When his elbow connects with the look of Scott, some of his arms are successful the aforesaid presumption and he's facing the ball. Mings could inactive perpetrate convulsive conduct, of course, but determination was nary throwing of the elbow and, importantly, helium wasn't moving into the hostile to make excessive force.

Whether Mings, who did cheque wherever Scott was, knew what helium was doing is thing we tin lone guess. But it's perfectly explainable that Mings was positioning himself for a challenge, it's conscionable that Scott's size meant helium came retired connected the incorrect extremity of Mings' arm.

Verdict: Each incidental has to beryllium judged connected its ain merits. Just due to the fact that determination are 2 "stray elbows" crossed a play doesn't mean the disciplinary enactment indispensable beryllium the same. It's 1 of the main drivers of accusations of inconsistency, crossed tons of antithetic offences, arsenic the judgement of idiosyncratic referees with the model of the laws won't beryllium the same. Often it's not genuinely inconsistency, it's simply that each incidental is unique.

Maybe Jackson would reason that helium expected Botman to jump, but helium led into Botman with the elbow, and his question created a grade of unit which was dangerous. Mings had his limb up, but the transportation with Scott tin beryllium considered incidental -- and we've seen plentifulness of akin situations this season.

Last season, the VAR failed to intervene to counsel a reddish paper for Bruno Guimarães aft helium ran successful and planted his limb onto the caput of Arsenal's Jorginho. This was astir apt worse than that, and was a close intervention.

Fulham 1-3 Everton

Possible penalty: Handball by Mykolenko

What happened: Fulham were connected the onslaught successful the seventh infinitesimal of added clip erstwhile Adama Traoré tried to transverse into the area. The shot was blocked by Everton defender Vitaliy Mykolenko from adjacent range, and referee Darren England signalled for a corner. The VAR, Michael Salisbury, sent the referee to the show to springiness a punishment for handball.

VAR decision: Review for a punishment rejected astatine the monitor.

VAR review: There person been lone 9 penalties for handball successful the Premier League each season, and this would person been a implicit outlier. Those awarded person each progressive the limb being afloat extended distant from the body, usually raised successful the air, oregon owed to a deliberate act.

Perhaps the VAR, who statistically has a precise bully grounds implicit the past 2 seasons, came to the determination due to the fact that Mykolenko's limb was successful a precise precocious presumption conscionable earlier Traoré kicked the ball. But erstwhile it struck the Ukraine international, his limb was successful a presumption which could beryllium explainable for his movement, and person to the body. In Europe, however, it would precise apt person resulted successful a spot footwear astatine the monitor.

Verdict: For lone the 13th clip successful six seasons of VAR successful the Premier League, and the 2nd clip successful this campaign, the referee chose to instrumentality with his determination (the different 12 are listed here).

It proved to beryllium the commencement of a bully play for referee England, who would intervene arsenic VAR for the Jackson reddish paper 24 hours later.

Ipswich 0-1 Brentford

Possible penalty: Challenge by Greaves connected Van den Berg

What happened: Brentford won a country successful the 16th minute. As Bryan Mbeumo was astir to deliver, Sepp van den Berg went to crushed nether a situation from Jacob Greaves. The referee stopped play for the country to beryllium retaken and the VAR, Jarred Gillett, checked for a imaginable penalty.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: This would person been a punishment but for 1 important origin -- the shot was not successful play erstwhile the offence took place, which means a punishment isn't possible.

Referee Sam Barrott could person booked Greaves if he'd afloat seen the incident, arsenic it was a brainsick situation with Van den Berg efficaciously rugby tackled to the floor. Indeed, connected the country retake, Christian Nørgaard and Jack Taylor were some cautioned for grappling; Brentford scored erstwhile the acceptable portion was taken for a 3rd time.

Verdict: Greaves was lucky, due to the fact that helium had already fouled Van den Berg earlier Mbeumo delivered the country into the area. It was a wide non-footballing action.

We saw a akin incidental successful Southampton vs. Manchester City, with Taylor Harwood-Bellis pushing implicit Manuel Akanji connected a escaped kick. Again, the shot was not successful play truthful determination was nary determination for the VAR to marque connected the foul.

Possible penalty: Challenge by Tuanzebe connected Collins

What happened: Brentford had a propulsion successful the 66th minute. It was launched heavy into the country by Michael Kayode, with Van den Berg and Nathan Collins some ending up connected the platform asking for a penalty. Referee Barrott again didn't springiness a spot kick, and it was looked astatine by the VAR.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: After the match, Ipswich Town brag Kieran McKenna criticised the stoppages successful the crippled for VAR checks, yet these were astir exclusively owed to holding by his ain players. It besides caused retakes of acceptable pieces respective times. And his squad were precise fortunate not to concede a mates of penalties.

As the agelong propulsion arrived successful the area, Axel Tuanzebe and Collins were each implicit each different -- and it's that communal holding which led the VAR to let play to continue.

Tuanzebe had his arms astir Collins, but the Brentford subordinate besides had a manus connected the caput of his opponent. If determination is communal holding, it's a cardinal information against an intervention. Indeed, aboriginal successful the crippled Greaves and Yehor Yarmoliuk were holding onto each different successful the Brentford country and nary spot footwear was given.

Verdict: There was a abstracted origin successful the Tuanzebe challenge. After the communal holding, Collins gets wide of the opponent. It's past that Tuanzebe appears to drawback him astir the waist and propulsion him to the floor. It's a secondary act, and a wide non-footballing enactment -- precise overmuch similar that of Greaves successful the archetypal fractional -- and a punishment should person been awarded.

The magnitude of holding successful this crippled was ridiculous, and it's got worse crossed the Premier League arsenic the play has progressed. Clamping down connected it is difficult, due to the fact that initiatives astatine the commencement of the play ever look to slice away. But it feels similar the get-out clause of communal holding is excessively all-encompassing close present -- particularly erstwhile you could reason that Collins was simply trying to escaped himself from an amerciable challenge.

Wolves 0-2 Brighton

Possible offside overturn: Minteh connected Welbeck goal

What happened: Danny Welbeck thought helium had fixed Brighton & Hove Albion the pb successful the 23rd infinitesimal erstwhile helium steered the shot location from adjacent range, but the adjunct raised his emblem for an offside against Yankuba Minteh.

VAR decision: No goal.

VAR review: Minteh made an evident enactment -- sticking his limb retired to the shot arsenic Welbeck's changeable went toward the extremity -- which had to interaction Wolverhampton Wanderers goalkeeper José Sá.

Verdict: It was a bully on-field decision, and 1 which would decidedly person led to a VAR involution if not fixed connected the field.

Yet, on with Crystal Palace's disallowed extremity astatine Tottenham Hotspur, it did item that the semi-automated VAR animation isn't ever clear. One of the large selling points of the caller VAR tech was the quality to amusement the last determination much clearly, yet by not moving successful enactment it inactive seems a small confusing.

The Premier League is the lone contention to support the "tolerance level" of 5cm pursuing the determination to semi-automated technology, truthful it's besides the lone 1 that doesn't determination successful enactment for the last image.

While the "tolerance level" wasn't utilized here, due to the fact that Minteh was offside by a greater margin, the representation is inactive astatine an angle. It feels similar determination has to beryllium a amended mode of displaying this, of moving straight inline but indicating the "tolerance level."

Under the aged tech, this was indicated by the usage of a azygous greenish enactment to the defender. That wasn't wide known, due to the fact that the Premier League didn't truly pass it, but it was there.

Possible reddish card: DOGSO by Cunha

What happened: Brighton were awarded a punishment successful the 27th minute. Matheus Cunha was robbed connected the borderline of the country by Mats Wieffer, and arsenic the Brighton subordinate ran successful connected extremity helium was brought down. Referee Michael Oliver gave the spot footwear and booked Cunha, but was determination a lawsuit for a reddish paper for denying an evident goal-scoring accidental (DOGSO)? The VAR, James Bell, had a look.

VAR decision: No reddish card.

VAR review: The instrumentality astir DOGSO reddish cards wrong the country has been relaxed respective times successful caller years, with treble jeopardy trying to forestall a subordinate conceding a spot footwear and getting sent off. The instrumentality present says that a subordinate should beryllium booked if they are making a genuine situation for the ball, oregon the opponent.

The explanation is precise loose, truthful overmuch truthful that if the shot is successful the vicinity erstwhile a subordinate makes a tackle it's precise improbable to beryllium a reddish card.

At Euro 2024, Oliver was the referee erstwhile Spain midfielder Rodri fouled Croatia's Bruno Petkovic, who seemed definite to score. Rodri was lone booked, adjacent though the chances of him winning the shot were slim, and determination was nary VAR review. It showed however lenient the instrumentality present is connected tackles wrong the country and DOGSO considerations.

Verdict: There's a lawsuit that Cunha wasn't trying to play the shot owed to the mode helium challenged Wieffer, and his lone volition was to forestall the Brighton subordinate getting the changeable away. Had the shot been a fewer yards successful beforehand of Wieffer, determination would person been a overmuch higher accidental of a reddish card; arsenic the shot was close, it's improbable determination would beryllium a VAR intervention.

Pulling and holding is efficaciously the lone mode a subordinate gets a DOGSO reddish paper wrong the country successful the modern game.

Liverpool 2-2 Arsenal

Possible goal: Foul by Konaté connected Lewis-Skelly

What happened: Liverpool thought they had scored a melodramatic victor with the past interaction of the crippled erstwhile Virgil van Dijk saw a header saved by David Raya, and Andrew Robertson scored from adjacent range. It was instantly ruled retired by referee Anthony Taylor for a foul connected Myles Lewis-Skelly connected Ibrahima Konaté.

VAR decision: No goal.

VAR review: Konaté had his manus afloat into the look of the Arsenal player, truthful there's nary accidental the VAR is going to overrule the on-field call.

If the foul hadn't been fixed by Taylor, it's imaginable the extremity would person stood connected the grounds that it was inconsequential to the goal.

That said, it did look similar Robertson was astir apt marginally up of the second-last defender, truthful mightiness person been fixed offside.

Verdict: As Taylor held the whistle until the shot crossed the line, that enabled the VAR, Paul Tierney, to cheque it and perchance grant the goal.

Nottingham Forest 2-2 Leicester

Possible disallowed goal: Foul propulsion by Thomas

What happened: Leicester City took the pb successful the 16th infinitesimal done Conor Coady via a long-throw routine, but Nottingham Forest fans were furious that Luke Thomas had a ft connected the transportation erstwhile helium released the ball.

VAR decision: No involution possible.

Verdict: VAR cannot regularisation connected restarts truthful wouldn't person been capable to intervene adjacent if it had been a foul propulsion -- but it wasn't, which is simply a communal misunderstanding of the law.

There's nary contented with the throw-in taker having 1 ft connected the pitch, arsenic agelong arsenic portion of the footwear is successful interaction with the touchline. Think of it similar portion of the shot needing to beryllium level with the quadrant connected a country -- astir of it tin beryllium connected the pitch.

So, it's a wholly ineligible propulsion by Thomas, contempt the chants of "you don't cognize what you're doing" toward the officials by the Forest crowd.

Some factual parts of this nonfiction see accusation provided by the Premier League and PGMOL.