VAR review: Should Arsenal have had a second penalty vs Atleti?


Apr 29, 2026, 07:19 PM ET

Video assistant referees spark controversy every week Premier LeagueBut also UEFA Champions League. So, how are decisions made and are they correct? This season, we look at key events to examine and explain the process in both VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, with over 12 seasons in the elite list, working across the Premier League and Championship. With extensive experience at the elite level, he has worked within the VAR space in the Premier League and provides a unique insight into the processes, logic and protocols delivered on Premier League match days.

the referee: Danny McKay
our: Dennis Higler
the time: 37 minutes
event: Penalty awarded to Arsenal

what happened: Arsenal as attackers Victor Gaikeres The defender received the ball beautifully in the Atletico penalty area David Hanko Pushed behind the Arsenal player. With Gaikares on the ground, referee Danny McKay pointed to the spot, awarding Arsenal a penalty for a careless foul challenge.

VAR decision: VAR didn’t need to look too far into the challenge and quickly cleared the on-field decision as correct.

Verdict / Insights: Yes, this is a correct field decision and not interference from VAR. Hanko’s challenge was clumsy and unintelligent. Gyökeres’ clever physical positioning left the Atletico defender with no chance to play the ball and it was poor judgment by the Atletico player.

the time: 55 minutes
event: Penalty awarded to Atletico Madrid for handball by Arsenal defender Ben White.

what happened: Shot on goal by Atletico Madrid Marcos Laurent Arsenal’s Ben White injured. However, a deflection off the defender’s shin before the ball hit his arm raised the level of controversy. After going to the VAR screen, the on-field referee finally awarded the penalty.

VAR decision: Another relatively quick review by VAR in this event, and on this occasion, he felt there was a clear error in not awarding a penalty on the field. VAR Higler felt that White’s arm was in an unnatural position relative to his body movement, and regardless of the defender’s shin deflection, which was negligible, he felt it met the criteria for a handball offense. After watching the replay for himself, Mackay agreed with the VAR interpretation and awarded a penalty to Atlético Madrid.

Verdict / Insights: A clearer decision than this Controversial penalty awarded from Paris Saint Germain Last night, White’s hand position was given when the ball hit him. The Arsenal defender’s arms were outstretched, away from his body, and apparently made his body shape abnormally large, putting him at risk of being penalized for a handball offence. Deviation is irrelevant in this situation. It was negligible, barely affecting the trajectory of the ball, but the arm position negated any deflection consideration. A penalty was the correct decision.

Contrary to last night’s decision, this incident will result in Premier League penalties for handball offences.

the time: 81 minutes
event: Reversing VAR; Arsenal had a penalty award overturned by VAR review.

what happened: Atletico Madrid defender Hanko appeared on Arsenal’s tour God bless you In the penalty area, referee McKay pointed to the spot, awarding the Gunners a penalty. Abolition of award after on-field review for VAR and referee only.

VAR decision: After reviewing several replays, VAR felt there was insufficient contact with the Atlético defender to award a penalty, using the argument that any contact with Eze was minimal, adding that the Arsenal attacker went over Hanko’s feet as opposed to the defender committing an obvious tripping offence.

VAR recommended an on-field review where, after seeing the replay for himself, the referee agreed with VAR and disallowed the penalty, restarting play with the ball thrown to the Atlético keeper. Jan Oblak.

Verdict / Insights: I felt it was a penalty in real time and I still feel the same after watching the replay. Hanko was late with his challenge, making contact with Eze’s boot while making no contact with the ball, and this contact met the criteria for a careless trip.

The on-field referee had a good view of the incident and was positive with his body language and key decisions.

It is difficult to understand and explain the logic of why VAR intervened in this incident. The footage clearly shows that there is foot-to-foot contact, created by a late challenge by a defender, and is certainly not a clear and obvious foul — it must be considered a poor piece of duty.

Similarly, once the referee looks at the screen, all options are open to him. I can only assume that the VAR talked the referee out of the decision, highlighting that the contact, in his opinion, was minimal and that the attacker’s motivation was to create a penalty situation as opposed to committing a foul.

In my opinion, both officials were wrong, and Arsenal should be outraged by the result.





Source link

اترك ردّاً

لن يتم نشر عنوان بريدك الإلكتروني. الحقول الإلزامية مشار إليها بـ *

Trending now

Nedra Talley Ross, Last Member of the Ronettes, Dies at 80
PSG beat Bayern Munich in historic 9-goal UCL semi-final
Reform is not racist, says Welsh leader in heated election debate
‘King’s Historic Congress Address’ and ‘Starmer Sees Rebellion’