VAR Review Questions Penalty Call in Sunderland’s Defeat to Arsenal
VAR’s early-season decisions have already produced a mix of straightforward applications of the handball law and more troubling failures to correct major penalty calls. The most contentious of the incidents came in Sunderland’s 2-0 defeat to Arsenal on Sept. 12, where a spot-kick awarded at 0-0 was allowed to stand despite replays indicating that Sunderland’s Dan Ballard, rather than Arsenal defender Ezri Konsa, had committed the holding offence.
Referee John Brooks awarded Sunderland a penalty in the 54th minute after a corner, judging Konsa to have been “all over” Ballard at the near post and facing away from play. Stuart Attwell, operating as VAR, accepted that description and confirmed the on-field call. Yet the replay evidence showed Ballard using his left arm to pull Konsa’s shirt, causing the Arsenal player to turn and fall into the Sunderland centre-back. Konsa’s initial contact was ordinary jostling at a set piece.
The correct restart should therefore have been a free kick to Arsenal. Brooks’ original view was understandable from his position, particularly amid the greater scrutiny on holding at corners this season, but the video evidence did not support his account of the incident. That mismatch should have prompted an intervention and a pitchside review. Instead, the penalty stood in what was a significant VAR non-intervention.
Handball rulings hinge on the scorer and the contact
Nottingham Forest’s Neco Williams was denied what appeared to be a 67th-minute winner against Tottenham on Sept. 5, a match that finished 0-0, but the eventual decision was consistent with the law. Referee Craig Pawson initially allowed the goal after Williams forced the ball over the line, before VAR Peter Bankes found that the ball had struck Williams’ arm immediately before he scored.
The review required several angles and speeds, with the decisive view coming from the camera inside Tottenham’s goal. It showed the ball hitting Williams’ arm as he launched himself towards it, altering its path before it crossed the line. Even accidental handling must lead to a disallowed goal when it is committed by the player who scores immediately afterwards, so Pawson was correctly advised to overturn the goal.
That ruling contrasted with Manchester United’s second goal in their 5-2 win over Ipswich Town on Aug. 30. Harry Maguire appeared to handle the ball as it dropped outside the Ipswich area, then struck a shot that took a substantial deflection off Jacob Greaves before entering the net. Craig Pawson was the referee and Jarred Gillett the VAR, with the goal confirmed after it was deemed an own goal by Greaves rather than a Maguire goal.
There were two questions for the VAR: whether Maguire’s shot had been on target before the deflection, and whether his earlier handling had been a punishable offence. The conclusion was that Greaves was the scorer and Maguire’s contact with the bouncing ball was accidental, with his arms positioned in front of his body. As Maguire had not scored directly, an accidental handball in the build-up could not cancel the goal under the law.
Ipswich could reasonably feel aggrieved, especially because a different judgement on either the deflection or the handball could have produced a different outcome. Had Maguire been credited with the goal, his touch of the ball with his arm would have required it to be disallowed. However, the decision to allow it was legally defensible, even if the handball issue remains one of the game’s most subjective areas.
Penalty threshold leaves Arsenal frustrated
Arsenal were also on the wrong end of another major penalty judgement in their 1-0 win at Aston Villa on Aug. 31. With the game deep into stoppage time, Bruno Guimarães appealed after Ian Maatsen challenged him from behind inside the Villa penalty area. Jarred Gillett rejected the appeals, while VAR James Bell conducted a brief check and supported the decision not to award a spot-kick.
Maatsen’s challenge involved a scissor-like movement from behind, made no contact with the ball and caught Guimarães. It met the standard for a foul and should have resulted in a penalty. The failure to intervene reflected the Premier League’s new, higher threshold for VAR involvement, intended to reduce reviews and reserve intervention for unmistakable errors. That approach can improve the flow of matches, but it cannot become a reason for overlooking clear fouls in the box.
Arsenal’s victory reduced the immediate fallout, though the decision would have carried far greater consequences had it cost them points. The case illustrated the risk in applying a restrictive intervention standard: referees retain greater authority, but a plainly incorrect reading of an important incident can remain uncorrected.
By comparison, Liverpool’s stoppage-time penalty at Newcastle United on Aug. 23 was correctly awarded and confirmed. Stuart Attwell pointed to the spot in the sixth minute of added time of a 2-2 draw after Lewis Hall brought down Victor Muñoz inside the Newcastle area. VAR James Bell checked the incident and confirmed that Hall had made knee-to-thigh contact without playing the ball.
Muñoz was moving at speed with possession under control, leaving Hall with little margin for an unsuccessful tackle. The defender’s challenge was clumsy and unnecessary, and the penalty was clear in real time. Newcastle may have felt Liverpool had been rescued after an uneven performance, but the late equaliser followed a legitimate foul rather than a generous VAR intervention.
