PGMOL and the Premier League are opening up discussions between the referee and the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) for key incidents this season. In the latest instalment of “Match Officials Mic’d Up” in 2024/25, Howard Webb, chief operating officer at PGMOL, discusses five recent incidents.
Webb and Michael Owen go through the conversations between the match officials to give fans greater knowledge of how decisions are made. The officials on the pitch do not hear all the conversations from the VAR hub in Stockley Park.
Incident: Brighton & Hove Albion attacker Joao Pedro attempted to head the ball and was caught by Arsenal defender William Saliba on his head.
What the match officials did: Referee Anthony Taylor awarded Brighton a penalty on-field as he believed Saliba had caught Joao Pedro on his head. VAR official Darren England acknowledged the incident and confirmed Taylor’s decision.
Owen: “I don’t think I’ve ever seen one before where it’s almost like a clash of heads. I personally didn’t think it was a penalty. What are you thoughts?”
Webb: “It’s a late contact by a player who hasn’t played the ball himself. The ball touched him, but he’s not played it. And [Joao] Pedro goes down in the penalty area.
“So when you break it down in that way, it’s a foul. And I know that it has split opinion, but I’ve also heard lots of people see it that way, just as a late contact by a player who’s failed to head the ball and has made contact with an opponent in the penalty area.”
Owen: “He’s still got a fair chunk [of the ball]. It’s still part of that same movement that he’s headed the ball with. That has to make a difference. If he doesn’t touch the ball, it’s definitely a penalty, I think. But he gets a fair chunk of the ball.”
Webb: “If he [Saliba] heads the ball first, if he’s first to that loose ball, I have no issue with that and then there’s a collision, but that’s not what happens. [Joao] Pedro gets there first, he heads the ball and he actually heads it on to Saliba. Saliba goes into [Joao] Pedro, the ball brushes his head, but he goes into [Joao] Pedro.
“That touch on the ball that you reference, Michael, doesn’t negate the possible award of the penalty. We’ve seen other examples of where the ball might touch a a defender. There’s still heavy contact on the follow through, and it’s a penalty. If a player plays the ball cleanly away, heads it away, [then we’re] almost certainly looking at something different.
“But that’s not what happens here. [Joao] Pedro heads the ball onto Saliba. Saliba goes into [Joao] Pedro and takes him down and for that reason we think this is a very supportable penalty kick.
Incident: In the build-up to Newcastle United’s equaliser against Tottenham Hotspur, the ball struck the hand of Joelinton before it fell into the path of Bruno Guimaraes, who slid in Anthony Gordon to score.
What the match officials did: Referee Andy Madley recognised that the ball hit Joelinton’s hand, but believed it was accidental as his arm was by his side and was in a natural position. He let play carry on and Newcastle went on to score. After review, VAR official Chris Kavanagh backed up Madley and confirmed his on-field decision to award the goal.
Webb: “There’s no doubt, the ball does strike Joelinton’s hand. And then the goal is scored fairly quickly afterwards. But Joelinton doesn’t score the goal. The ball goes to Guimaraes I believe and then it goes to Gordon, who scores.
“Of course, we can only penalise handball in certain circumstances. Not every contact with the hand or arm on the ball is something we would penalise.
“We see this situation and the VAR describes it really well. Joelinton’s arm [is] in a really normal position as he’s moving and then when the ball does strike him from quite close range, it’s down by his side. The ball hits the arm and then ricochets off.
“He doesn’t move the arm in the direction of the ball. The arm is moving naturally. He doesn’t, importantly, make himself unnaturally bigger. His arm is close to his body so that’s not a handball offence. He wouldn’t be penalised with a penalty [against him] if he did that in his own penalty area.
“The only time he’d ever be penalised for that is if he scored immediately from that contact or if it [the ball] went directly in off that particular arm but that’s not what happens here. So we agree it’s not a handball offence.
“Tottenham might feel unlucky [because of] the way the ricochet played out and the goal was scored. But the laws of the game stipulate quite clearly that position isn’t something that you would penalise.”
What the match officials did: Referee Lewis Smith sent Rodriguez off for serious foul play. VAR official Stuart Attwell told Smith to delay the restart while the on-field decision was checked. Both he and AVAR Richard West believed that Rodriguez slipped and should not be given a red card. They told Smith to review the decision in the Referee Review Area (RRA); Smith overturned the decision and issued Rodriguez a yellow card instead of a red.
“And in this situation on field, the referee clearly believed that challenge by Rodriguez, the way he went into the challenge, the type of contact that he viewed from his position had those considerations that we talked about for serious foul play.”
Owen: “He does jump in, doesn’t he? He does jump into it and he does catch him slightly as well.”
Webb: “He kind of steps into it a little bit. He doesn’t lose control of his body in the way we see sometimes where players lunge in. On this one, he kind of steps into it with a little hop if you like, and he just catches the toe end and then his feet slip. And that’s what takes him into the play and bowls him over.
“So there’s an element of recklessness about the way he goes in. But you need excessive force. You don’t see excessive force here. You see small contact on the end of the toe followed by that slip, followed by him bowling the player over. That’s very evident on the video.
“It’s why we’ve got VAR, because then we can look at it and say ‘is the on-field decision [to show] the red card clearly obviously wrong?’ And in this case the VAR forms the opinion it was.
“He [Smith] could have maintained his decision, but when he saw the video and the view that we have, you can see very clearly it’s not a red card offence and it was rightly overturned.”
Webb: “The best-placed match official by a long way is the referee who is right behind the situation. [He] sees Fabian Schar make that clean tackle and then Duran takes a few steps and brings his right leg across from right to left and onto the back of Schar, who is on the floor. And he [the referee] deemed that to be a deliberate action by Duran and one of violent conduct.
“It’s always hard to read players’ minds. We have to judge the actions that we see, the physical evidence that we see on the field of play to make our judgments. And this situation, the referee saw that action and felt it was a red card offence.
“And when the VAR look back on it, he saw that movement of that leg onto the back of Schar and didn’t feel that the on-field referee’s call was clearly and obviously wrong. Obviously, therefore, it stayed as an on-field call as a red card.”
Incident: Matheus Cunha scored directly from a corner kick. As the corner was taken, Wolverhampton Wanderers defender Matt Doherty stood in front of Manchester United goalkeeper Andre Onana, while defender Hugo Bueno stood behind him. Both parties engaged with each other as the ball was swung in.
What the match officials did: Referee Tony Harrington’s decision was to award a goal. VAR official Matt Donohue reviewed the on-field decision for a potential foul on Onana and handball but believed neither offence was committed and the goal was therefore not disallowed.
defensive offside lines being manipulated, being moved before the ball comes in. These are things that we have to adapt to, of course, and be aware of and and decide whether something is legal or not within the laws of the game.
“And we think this one is. All players are entitled to their position on the field of play. Matt Doherty here stood in front, he’s entitled to be there. Yes, he’s going to make life difficult for Andre Onana, but he’s got an absolute right to be there and to take that position.
“In the end Onana moves backwards away from Doherty and kind of moves a little bit into Bueno. So we just see this is all very normal. We don’t see an offense by a Wolves player in this situation. Of course, defending teams often now think about how they can counter-act these these tactics by attacking teams and being close to goalkeepers.
“But as long as the goalkeeper doesn’t have their arms interfered with…it’s different maybe when the goalkeeper’s jumping, that puts it in a different place because they’re much more vulnerable to physical contact. But in this situation we see nothing like that. We see two players taking the position on the field and not committing an offense.
“And this leads to a goal being scored direct from the corner but not because of a foul by any of the attackers in that location.
Incident: There was a potential foul by Jean-Philippe Mateta on Aaron Ramsdale as Crystal Palace equalised from a corner through Trevoh Chalobah against Southampton.
What the officials did: The goal was awarded by referee Michael Salisbury. The VAR, Graham Scott, reviewed the actions of Mateta and Ramsdale and decided there was contact but not enough for a foul. This was ratified by Assistant VAR Akil Howson who noted that both players were mutually engaged with each other and as such the goal was allowed to stand.
Owen: “I don’t agree with this one. I think that’s a foul on Ramsdale. What’s your take? That looks to me like it’s a straight arm from Mateta onto Ramsdale and he’s preventing him from having a clear jump at the ball.”
Webb: “I see both players engaging with each other and we have the officials talking about the engagement between Mateta and by Ramsdale, both using their arm against each other. We laid out quite clearly at the start of the season that not every bit of contact will be given as a foul.
“There’s an expectation in the English game that some physical contact will be allowed that maybe doesn’t go elsewhere in different parts of the world.
“In this situation, we see Ramsdale’s arm go across Mateta and Mateta’s left arm goes out against Ramdale. We don’t think it crosses that line into unfair physical contact when both players are engaging in that way.
“Now if the referee’s call had been giving a foul, that would have stirred because there’s subjectivity about how much force is being used by the two players. But we feel that this is within the bounds of acceptable contact between both players when they’re engaging with their feet on the floor.
“Ramsdale is not jumping. He’s not trying to punch the ball and Mateta is not messing with his arms or his hands. So it’s two players engaging with their feet on the floor, and using body strength against each other. We were okay with this one.”
