"VAR is always going to face accusations of being inconsistent, because its role is not to create consistency of decision-making but judge individual incidents based upon the on-field call. So it can be helpful to understand what VAR is looking for and why similar situations can have opposing outcomes. From the penalty awarded to Manchester City against Liverpool, to Dan Burn's challenges on Dango Ouattara and Brighton's overturned spot-kick at Crystal Palace, we saw a whole range."
"When sliding, Mamardashvili only made a small amount of contact on Doku. We are often told this is not enough for a VAR penalty, so why was this any different from what we have seen before? One of the key considerations for VAR is how the attacker goes to ground, which the Premier League refers to as "contact with consequence"."
VAR evaluates each incident against the on-field decision rather than aiming to produce uniform outcomes across similar plays. The protocol centers on whether contact has a 'contact with consequence' and whether the attacker’s actions match that contact or show embellishment. Jeremy Doku’s fall led to a penalty because minimal contact aligned with his attempt to stay on his feet and balance for a shot, indicating a natural impact on his ability to continue. Dan Burn’s challenge on Dango Ouattara was judged differently because the contact did not meet that consequence threshold and resulted in a booking for simulation. Perception of softness arises from situational nuance.
Read at www.bbc.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]