Premier League VAR review: Gravenberch wrongly sent off vs. Man City?
VAR often causes controversy, but how are decisions made? Our resident ref, Andy Davies, explains all.
Premier LeagueEnglish Premier LeagueLiverpoolManchester City
Full story
The video assistant referee causes controversy every week, whether it be the Premier League, Champions League or FA Cup, but how are those decisions made and are they correct?
For the 2026-27 season, we are taking a look at the major incidents to explain the process in terms of both VAR protocol and the laws of the game. The most surprising, controversial and complicated decisions will be examined all season long right here.
Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, with over 12 seasons on the elite list, working across the Premier League and Championship. With extensive experience at the elite level, he has operated within the VAR space in the Premier League and offers a unique insight into the processes, rationale and protocols that are delivered on a matchday.
Was Gravenberch wrongly sent off in Liverpool-Man City?
Referee: Chris Kavanagh VAR: Paul Howard Time: 62 minutes Incident: Liverpool's Ryan Gravenberch sent off for a second yellow card at a key stage in the match
What happened: Having already received a yellow card early in the match, Gravenberch fouled City's Jérémy Doku and received a second yellow card from Kavanagh.
RYAN GRAVENBERCH RED CARD. Ryan Gravenberch's tackle on Jérémy Doku sees him earn a second yellow card, and he's sent off. https://t.co/VlzXqzwDZ5
VAR review: Newly introduced into the Premier League this season, second yellow cards can now be reviewed by VAR, but only if they are factually incorrect, and this situation does not fit this category.
Verdict and insight: Most won't like this second yellow card decision, and it will be viewed as "soft." However, Kavanagh was put into a difficult position by Gravenberch's late, clumsy challenge on Doku, which clearly denied the Man City attacker a promising attack as he had clear opportunity to attack Liverpool in a positive area of the pitch. The subsequent yellow card was not a surprise.
These situations are the worst type of situations for referees, because you really want a second-card offense to be undebatable and obvious to everyone. Technical offenses can be questioned and heavily debated, regardless of whether the referee is correct in law.
Ryan Gravenberch's second yellow card ultimately decided the game, as Man City scored three goals in quick succession immediately afterward. Michael Regan/Getty Images Gravenberch can feel aggrieved by his first yellow card. From the replays, it looks like the referee misjudged the contact made by the Liverpool midfielder on Elliot Anderson, and on reflection, a free kick alone would have been a better outcome. However, once a player is on a yellow card and challenges an opponent from behind, as Gravenberch did on Doku, the player is running a very high risk of receiving a second yellow if the challenge is a foul and has consequence.
Liverpool will feel hard done by, but the second yellow card was a correct call from the referee.
Should Man United have gotten a penalty at Fulham?
Referee: Peter Bankes VAR: Nick Hopton Time: 86 minutes Incident: Possible penalty to Man United for a handball
What happened: Man United's Lisandro Martínez felt he should have earned a penalty when he fired the ball at Fulham defender Calvin Bassey from close range and the ball struck Bassey's arm. The referee did not feel it was an offence and waved away the appeals for a penalty.
The ball hit Calvin Bassey's arm in the penalty box, but Man United were not awarded a penalty. CARLOS JASSO / AFP via Getty Images VAR decision: VAR agreed with the referee's interpretation of the incident, that the ball was struck at close range, defenders' arms were close to his body and within bodyline and therefore not a handball offence. VAR checked and cleared the on-filed decision as correct.
Verdict and insight: While Man United might have wanted the penalty, this was a correct on-field decision by the refereeing team and non-intervention by VAR.
This incident is a good example of how the handball law can create confusion in these types of situations. When the ball is struck at close range, the law is clear that the referee should allow play to continue if the player's hand or arm movement is the result of a natural reflex to potentially protect the player's face, and if such action does not make their body unnaturally bigger.
Additionally, if arms are within the body line and the ball would have struck the body/face this should also be taken into consideration when applying this law.
Bassey's reaction falls within this interpretation and was a good read by the on-field assistant referee, who would have led the communication in this incident.
Was Rice lucky not to be sent off at Brighton?
Referee: Darren England VAR: Tim Wood Time: 90 + 7 mins Incident: Possible red card for Arsenal's Declan Rice
What happened: Rice picked up a late yellow card when he appeared to kick out at Brighton's Malick Yalcouyé in an off-the-ball incident.
VAR decision: The on-field decision of yellow card was checked and cleared as correct by the VAR.
In these types of situations, VAR involvement can be triggered only if they believe the on-field refereeing team missed a violent act or an act or brutality. VAR was comfortable that the action by Rice did not meet either threshold, so the check was a straightforward one.
Verdict: This frustrated act by Rice was picked up in real time by the fourth official and certainly high risk, when considering many off-the-ball, non-footballing offenses are often interpreted as a red card offense by referees and matched by the expectations of football, so Rice can consider himself fortunate. However, I am comfortable that this action in isolation was a frustrated and petulant attempt at a trip on Yalcouyé and not a violent act or act of brutality, therefore a yellow card feels like a correct and sensible outcome.
VAR would never get involved in this situation unless there was clear evidence that the on-field outcome was incorrect, so the yellow card was correctly checked and cleared. Rice is very fortunate that the original on-field interpretation of his action was only a yellow card, otherwise he would be serving a three-game ban following the international break.
Why was Phil Foden sent off in the Manchester derby?
Referee: Michael Oliver VAR: Matt Donohue Time: 23rd minute Incident: Red card for Phil Foden of Manchester City
What happened: City's Foden appeared to kick out at United's Bruno Fernandes following an untidy tangle between the two players.
Phil Foden is sent off at Old Trafford after kicking out at Bruno Fernandes. pic.twitter.com/A4JigAVEaS
VAR decision: The VAR checked and confirmed the red card for violent conduct by Foden as a correct decision.
VAR review: The VAR had a straightforward check to confirm this on-field decision, as there was a clear kick out from Foden into Fernandes' body. The pictures aligned with the on-field comms from referee Michael Oliver, and this was a simple VAR process.
Phil Foden was sent off for Manchester City. Photo by Shaun Brooks - CameraSport via Getty Images Verdict: Foden can have no complaints as he lost his composure in this situation.
There might be some debate around the level of contact of Foden's action. However, when you kick out in nature that Foden did in this moment, it is very likely that a red card for violent card will be the outcome, regardless of level of contact.
Referee Oliver was very quick with his decision, but his positioning was excellent, allowing him all the available information to reach his outcome. Additionally, it was a straightforward review for the VAR, and he correctly checked and cleared the decision having considered all the dynamics of the incident.
Why was Enzo Fernández not ruled offside in Man City's goal?
Time: 60th minute Incident: City awarded controversial winning goal
What happened: Erling Haaland scored what looked like a goal that would be disallowed for offside. However, following a long VAR check, the goal was awarded and City took a significant lead.
Erling Haaland scores against United with City down to 10 men! pic.twitter.com/pWgwXMR4gi
VAR decision: The VAR overturned the on-field decision and awarded a goal, judging that Haaland was onside before he tapped into the United net.
VAR review: There were two key elements in this offside goal review. First, semi-automated technology showed that Haaland was in an onside position when the ball was crossed by his teammate. Second, the VAR had a subjective decision to make; did Man City's Enzo Fernández either play the ball or impact on Man United center back Lisandro Martínez's ability to play the ball given that Fernández was in an offside position and in front of the goal?
The VAR was comfortable that Fernández didn't meet any of the offside criteria and advised the referee that a goal should be the outcome.
Why was Enzo Fernández not ruled offside? Catherine Ivill - AMA/Getty Images Verdict: This was an incorrect decision by the VAR to award a goal to City, a controversial outcome that will create a lot of noise in the coming days.
What was correct: the factual aspect of the decision, which showed that Haaland was onside when the cross was played. Technology is now applied in these situations, and pictures clearly showed the position of the City attacker behind the leg of United's Dorgu.
However, the subjective element of this decision is where the VAR has made his error. There are two significant sections of law that the VAR did not apply in this moment, which should have resulted in a different outcome and the goal disallowed. It should be deemed an offside offense when (A) A player clearly attempts to play a ball that is close when this action impacts an opponent, or (B) A player makes an obvious action that clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball.
In this situation, Man United's Martinez was clearly impacted by the position and action of Fernández. Martinez's ability to defend the ball was certainly affected by Fernández, and this should have been recognized within the VAR review.
The process in this situation should have been an on-field review, when the referee comes across to the screen and views the incident himself. This would have been a subjective decision and therefore only the referee can make the final decision.
Soccer doesn't like what it doesn't understand, and this was a confusing situation for everyone. The incident will be viewed as a big error and ultimately game-changing.
Should Sunderland have been given a penalty vs. Arsenal?
Referee: John Brooks VAR: Stuart Attwell Time: 54 min Incident: Penalty awarded to Sunderland
What happened: With the score 0-0 early in the second half, Arsenal were left frustrated as defender Ezri Konsa was adjudged to have fouled Sunderland's Dan Ballard after a Sunderland corner, and referee John Brooks pointed to the spot.
VAR decision: VAR checked and confirmed the on-field decision of a penalty kick to Sunderland.
Should Sunderland have been given a penalty vs. Arsenal? Michael Driver/MI News/NurPhoto via Getty Images VAR review: Brooks' live comms described Konsa's actions on Ballard as being "all over him at the near post, facing the wrong way." Having considered the communication from the referee, VAR ruled that he was accurate in his description and his rationale for awarding a penalty kick, and confirmed the decision as correct.
Verdict and insight: With the heightened profile, focus, and referees asked to be more assertive in set-play situations such as corners, there was a high chance that a small number of penalty kicks would be awarded incorrectly, and this was an example of it playing out in real-time.
From the referee's on-field position, this incident would have looked like Konsa was clumsy with his contact on Ballard. As both players fall to the ground, referee Brooks believed that it was the Arsenal player who was pulling, deliberately facing away from the ball and committing a holding offense -- the type of foul the football world was hoping would be penalized this season.
This swing of events within 5 minutes of each other made the difference in Arsenal's victory! pic.twitter.com/11gRELkyxU
However, from the replays, it was clear that though Arsenal's Konsa engaged with Ballard with normal contact, Ballard using his left arm to pull Konsa's shirt made the Arsenal defender spin and land on the Sunderland center back. Any punishable offense was, in fact, committed by Ballard and the restart should have been a defensive free kick.
Mikel Arteta was fuming afterwards and it's difficult to understand why VAR did not intervene in this situation given the information available to him, as it was a clear but understandable on-field error by the referee -- the referee's live description of the incident did not match the replay pictures, and this should be a red flag to the VAR.
This was a poor non-intervention by VAR, and an on-field review should have been recommended.
Why was Forest's Williams denied a winner vs. Spurs?
Referee: Craig Pawson VAR: Peter Bankes Time: 67 min Incident: Possible handball to Forest
What happened: Forest defender Neco Williams thought he had given his team the lead as he bundled it across the Spurs goal line. However, VAR overturned the goal for a handball offense.
VAR decision: VAR checked the referee's call of a goal for Forest and determined that Williams handled the ball immediately before scoring and recommended that the goal be disallowed.
VAR review: This was a difficult review for the VAR, which involved multiple angles and replay speeds to determine if this goal should be allowed to stand.
VAR Bankes would have been uncomfortable with the way Williams bundled the ball into the goal, as there was very high chance that it had struck his arm. However, even if the contact was accidental, the law states that any touch of the arm by the goalscorer immediately before a goal must be disallowed.
The in-goal camera provided the decisive information, as it showed the ball striking the arm of Williams as he threw himself in to try and score, creating a change in trajectory of the ball and resulting in a goal -- VAR recommended to the referee that he should disallow the goal for a handball.
Verdict and insight: Not an easy process for the VAR to review. However, once you see the decisive replays from inside Spurs' goal, it is a straightforward decision for the VAR, as the law dictates the outcome.
With so much debate surrounding the Harry Maguire "handball goal" from last week -- when the ball struck the arm of Maguire before his shot was deflected into the goal off a defender, meaning Maguire was not the actual scorer -- this scenario is far clearer and the correct outcome is reached.
How new standards cost Arsenal a clear penalty
Referee: Jarred Gillett VAR: James Bell Time: 90 + 9 mins Incident: Possible penalty to Arsenal
What happened: Arsenal's Bruno Guimarães was screaming for a penalty after he was challenged from behind by Villa's Ian Maatsen inside the box. Referee Jarred Gillett waved away the appeals.
Bruno Guimaraes was brought down from behind by Villa's Ian Maatsen inside the box. Charlotte Wilson/Offside/Offside via Getty Images VAR decision: VAR checked and cleared the on-field decision of no penalty.
VAR review: VAR James Bell clearly applied the new "high bar" for intervention when he cleared this decision, taking the view that the referee's on-field decision not to award a penalty to Arsenal was not a clear and obvious error. After reviewing the replays, VAR quickly checked and cleared the decision as correct.
Verdict and insight: For me, this was a clear penalty kick that should've been awarded to Arsenal. I was surprised it was not given on-field by match referee Gillett, and equally surprised the VAR did not recommend a pitch-side review.
The decision by Villa's Maatsen to challenge in the nature he did, from behind with a scissor action and no opportunity to play the ball was a poor one. By making contact only with Guimarães and none on the ball, there can be little doubt that it met the threshold for a foul -- and it took place inside the penalty box.
The surprising non-intervention by VAR is a result of the Premier League's desire this season to have less involvement and only very clear errors to be corrected, with a new "higher bar" for interventions to be applied.
It's a positive principle that should result in less time spent re-litigating decisions, yes. However, this was clearly a mistake from the on-field referee not to award a penalty and, in my opinion, this was an intervention that has been missed by the VAR team.
Arsenal winning the game will cover the narrative to some degree, however, if this was a deciding moment that cost Arsenal all three points, the profile of the incident would've been significant.
The high bar will absolutely improve the game and lower the expectations from football that VAR should get involved in everything, however it is so important that clear fouls in the penalty area, like this situation, do not get overlooked when the referee has mis-read a key moment.
Why did Maguire's obvious handball not cancel goal?
Referee: Craig Pawson VAR: Jarred Gillett Time: 56th minute Incident: Possible handball in lead-up to Man United's second goal by Harry Maguire
What happened: The ball was cleared out of Ipswich's box toward Maguire, and the ball appeared to strike the arm of Maguire. He brought the ball to his feet and struck the ball toward goal, where it then took a grave deflection from Ipswich defender Jacob Greaves before going into the goal. Following a VAR review, the goal was allowed to stand.
VAR decision and communications: The referee's call of goal for Manchester United was checked and confirmed by VAR, who deemed that Maguire was not the immediate goalscorer after an accidental handball.
VAR: "It's an own goal and the accidental handball is not punishable, so we recommend you award the goal."
A Harry Maguire strike and its ruled an own goal 😤 Man United take charge of a one score lead 🔥 🔴 Man United: 2 ⚪️ Ipswich Town: 1 ⏱️ 56' pic.twitter.com/G3r5Jp6f4C
VAR review: With the knowledge that the ball had clearly struck the arm of Maguire, the VAR had two key elements to consider:
(1) Was Maguire's shot on target before it struck Greaves and entered the goal? In other words: was Maguire the goalscorer? (2) Was the handball by Maguire accidental or a punishable as an intentional handball offence?
The answers to both questions could have resulted in a different outcome, but the VAR determined that it was clearly an own goal by Greaves, meaning Maguire was not the scorer, and that the handball incident was accidental. Both details meant the ball striking the arm of Maguire was negated in law, and the VAR recommended to the referee that the goal should be awarded.
Verdict and insight: It's understandable that Ipswich Town will feel hard-done by the decision.
If Maguire had scored the goal, then his handling of the ball in the lead-up would've canceled out the goal. It's only because it took the massive deflection that changed the trajectory of the ball that Maguire's incidental handball did not result in the goal being overturned.
In truth, it was a 50/50 decision that could have fallen the other way if the judgement of VAR was a different one. But the law doesn't allow a goal to be disallowed in this situation if the handball by Maguire was judged as accidental.
The subjective nature of handball in general is a confusing element of the game, and if VAR had judged this as a punishable handball and disallowed the goal, it would certainly have been a credible outcome given the context of the situation in my opinion -- and a more comfortable outcome for football.
However, the judgement by VAR Jared Gillett was not an incorrect one, with Maguire challenging for a bouncing ball and his arms in front of his body, the ball striking his left arm can certainly be deemed as accidental. It was on this occasion, with Man United the benefactor of it in this situation, and Ipswich rightfully feeling hard done by.
Should Liverpool have been bailed out by penalty?
Referee: Stuart Attwell VAR: James Bell Time: 90 + 6 mins Incident: Penalty awarded to Liverpool for a challenge by Lewis Hall on Victor Muñoz
What happened: Liverpool's Muñoz charged into the Newcastle penalty area late into the game, and Hall made a clumsy challenge bringing the Liverpool player to the ground. Referee Stuart Attwell pointed to the spot for a late penalty for the Reds.
LIVERPOOL ARE GIVEN A PENALTY 😳 ⚪️ Newcastle: 2 🔴 Liverpool: 1 ⏱️ 90+6' pic.twitter.com/Zrk9oJMxZ7
VAR decision and communications: The referee's call of penalty for the challenge by Hall on Muñoz was checked and confirmed by VAR.
The referee: "He doesn't play the ball. He makes clear contact." VAR: "It's knee into thigh contact. Confirming the on-field decision of penalty."
Verdict: This was a correct decision made by referee Atwell and his assistant, and a decision I felt was clear in real-time.
In this type of situation, with an attacker moving into the penalty area at speed with the ball under control, any challenge by a defender must successfully play the ball or they run a very high risk of committing a foul.
Hall was naïve to make his clumsy challenge in the manner he did, and Muñoz was too clever for the Newcastle defender. This was a clear foul by Hall, and a penalty kick a correct outcome.
While it may feel to Newcastle fans that Liverpool were bailed out and gifted a draw after middling performance, Hall's foul was needless and to blame for Liverpool equalizing.
