The VAR Review: Why Rice was sent off, and should De Ligt have been?

Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?

After each weekend we take a look at the major incidents, to examine and explain the process both in terms of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

In this week’s VAR Review: What happened with Declan Rice’s red card against Brighton? Should Matthijs de Ligt have been sent off? And what has happened to handball penalties?

Arsenal 1-1 Brighton

Possible red card: Veltman challenge on Rice

What happened: Declan Rice tangled with Joël Veltman by the corner flag in the 49th minute, with referee Chris Kavanagh giving a free kick to Brighton & Hove AlbionArsenal player with his follow through. Rice, who was already on a caution, was shown a second yellow card and sent off for delaying the restart, but no action was taken against Veltman. It was looked at by the VAR, Andy Madley (watch here).

VAR decision: No red card for Veltman.

VAR review: It was the talking point of the weekend, and while it might appear to be a harsh decision, Rice left the referee with little choice. While his second booking alone cannot be reviewed through VAR, the situation as a whole is worth discussing.

The VAR check was for a possible red card for serious foul play, due to the way Veltman kicked through on Rice. This was a quick look from Madley because there wasn’t the force or brutality required for a red card, but you could argue he should have been booked because he surely could have avoided kicking the Arsenal midfielder.

Kavanagh made it clear to the players he had seen what Rice had done, motioning that the Arsenal player had kicked the ball away and off the field.

At the start of the season, in presentations to players at all 20 clubs, it was made clear there would be a strict application on the the most obvious examples of delaying the restart.

And this is the key point, and why it differs from many other situations: Rice intervened when Veltman was in the process of taking the free kick. The opponent was in the process of restarting the match.

Kicking the ball away in itself isn’t an automatic cautionable offence, it’s the impact — delaying the taking of a restart — which determines any sanction. You will often see players tap or kick the ball away in set-piece situations, but if the referee deems this didn’t prevent a quick restart then they won’t take further action.

Rice was guilty of “kicking or carrying the ball away, or provoking a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play,” and can have no complaints — which he has admitted.

So why was Rice sanctioned while Brighton’s Joao Pedro escaped a yellow card for doing something similar in the 18th minute? It comes down to that judgement on delaying the restart, even if Pedro’s actions look to be far more deliberate — he kicked the ball up the field after it had gone out for a throw.

The referee decided that as the ball had run out of play, and there wasn’t an Arsenal player within the vicinity (the ball was running away) to take a quick throw-in, it wasn’t worth a yellow. It was about to run to Arsenal boss Mikel Arteta, who could have thrown it to one of his players, though he was way outside of his technical area and shouldn’t even have been in that position to collect it.

Veltman was ready to take the restart when Rice touched the ball out of play. Pedro’s offence would have been comparable if he’d kicked the ball away as an Arsenal player was about to pick it up.

Would Pedro have been booked if the incidents had happened in reverse order? It’s highly likely and that comes down to game management and associated circumstances. Yet to fans, Pedro booting the ball away seems a far clearer offence than Rice tapping it and getting sent off.

Some may also feel Veltman was looking to get Rice booked again, yet the yellow card simply doesn’t happen if the Arsenal player doesn’t knock the ball out of play.

Another issue with the Rice incident is that the ball might have been moving when Veltman was about to take the free kick, which would have been an illegal restart, but no one can know if the ball would have stopped rolling because Rice’s act removed that possibility.

The only way Rice’s second yellow could have been removed is if the VAR sent the referee to the monitor for a red card for Veltman, and the referee reassessed the whole situation. Once sent to the monitor, the referee is in control of all disciplinary outcomes, though in this case Rice’s booking would have remained in place as it was a clear cautionable offence.

Possible penalty: Handball by Dunk

What happened: Ben White attempted a shot on goal in the 11th minute, with the ball hitting the arm of Lewis Dunk before it went behind for a corner. Was there a case for a penalty (watch here)?

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: Dunk had his arm close to his body and made no movement towards the ball. We’ll touch more on handball penalties in the Premier League later.

Man United 0-3 Liverpool

Possible offside: Salah on Alexander-Arnold goal

What happened: Liverpool thought they had taken the lead in the sixth minute when Trent Alexander-Arnold scored from a cut-back by Luis Díaz. As the players celebrated the goal, the VAR, John Brooks, checked for a possible offside.

VAR decision: Goal disallowed.

VAR review: It’s a common misconception that a player cannot be offside if the ball is played backwards, because 99% of such situations come from the ball being played forward.

Yet the direction of the pass is irrelevant for offside, be it forwards, square or backwards. All that matters is the position of the attacking player relative to the second-to-last opponent or the ball.

If the attacker is in front of the second-to-last opponent, they must be behind the ball — which is why Alexander Isak’s winning goal for Newcastle United against Tottenham Hotspur wasn’t disallowed. If Isak had been in front of the ball, he would have been offside, regardless of how the pass was played.

As Salah touched the ball before it ran to Alexander-Arnold, it’s an automatic offside offence. If he’d made no attempt to touch it, the goal would likely have stood because he had no direct impact upon an opponent.

Possible red card: De Ligt foul on Díaz

What happened: Matthijs de Ligt was booked in the 65th minute for a late challenge on Díaz, but was there enough to warrant a red card for serious foul play?

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR review: De Ligt’s tackle was just about the right side of the line to avoid a red card, though he took a huge risk by coming in at pace.

The Netherlands international probably avoided an issue because he led with only one foot and wasn’t challenging directly into the opponent, but it was small margins.

Possible penalty: Mazraoui challenge on Gakpo

What happened: Cody Gakpo went down on the edge of the area in the 89th minute in a tussle with Noussair Mazraoui, with Darwin Núñez then firing a shot over the bar. Referee Anthony Taylor signalled he had played advantage when the ball went out. The VAR checked for a possible penalty (watch here).

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: Should advantage be played on a penalty situation, and why wasn’t it pulled back by the VAR if the referee had judged a foul but got the positioning wrong?

A referee should never play advantage on a penalty unless there is a very clear and immediate opportunity to score. So based on that, Taylor must have decided the foul contact was just outside the box.

It then becomes a question of protocol. If the referee identified a foul, but that foul was actually inside the area, shouldn’t the VAR be passing this information on?

Once Liverpool hadn’t made the most of the advantage, the VAR will not go back to assess a judgement the referee has already made.

It does beg the question what the VAR was actually checking. Perhaps Brooks wasn’t immediately aware that Taylor had signalled advantage, or it might have been the nature of the contact (unlikely but, for example, a possible red card) rather than it being a foul.

If the VAR did get involved, it could have created a situation whereby they had to award a penalty factually on position, but didn’t believe it was a foul (with Gakpo initiating contact). That would have meant sending Taylor to the monitor to overturn his subjective judgement of a foul, even though he never actually gave a spot kick in the first place. That’s like what happened in Brentford vs. Brighton last season, when the ref went to the screen but no spot kick was awarded as there was an attacking foul immediately before the defensive infringement.

Nottingham Forest 1-1 Wolves

Possible penalty: Handball by Strand Larsen

What happened: Nottingham Forest were on the attack in the 44th minute when Morgan Gibbs-White crossed to the far post to Chris Wood, but the ball touched the arm of Jørgen Strand Larsen. Wood asked for a penalty, and it was checked by the VAR, Michael Salisbury.

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: At the start of the season, the Premier League made it clear that players would have far more leeway when it came to their arms and the expected position relative for movement, so we should see fewer handball penalties through VAR in English football.

Strand Larsen had his back to the flight of the ball as he positioned himself to challenge Wood. While there was a movement of the arm, this was to get into position, and the Wolverhampton Wanderers player couldn’t have been aware the ball was dropping at that exact moment.

This is likely to be penalised in some other top European leagues and the Champions League, but the Premier League is determined to get the handball law back to a position where players only give penalties away when they have taken a risk or committed a clear and deliberate act.

Possible penalty: Handball by Wood

What happened: A free kick was delivered into the Forest penalty area in the 75th minute. Craig Dawson was up for a set piece and being marked by Wood. As the ball dropped, it hit the arm of the Forest player, so was there a case for a spot kick here?

VAR decision: No penalty.

VAR review: There are striking similarities between this incident and the claim Forest had earlier in the match.

Like Larsen, Wood’s arm was moving, but that is to be expected for the way he was challenging an opponent. Wood also has his back to the play and can’t be aware of where the ball was dropping.

Let’s hope handball remains consistent in such situations.

Leicester 1-2 Aston Villa

Possible goal: Vardy

What happened: Harry Winks played the ball through the middle in the 58th minute to Oliver Skipp, but it hit referee David Coote on the way, then Skipp passed to Jamie Vardy to score. However, Coote had already stopped the game before the goal.

VAR decision: No intervention possible.

VAR review: The VAR can’t get involved here, but there’s a distinction in this law that is worth a short explanation.