Andy Davies
Apr 5, 2026, 10:54 PM
Open Extended Reactions
Video assistant referee causes controversy every week whether it be the Premier League, Champions League or FA Cup, but how are decisions made and are they correct?
This season, 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.
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 Premier League matchday.
Referee: Craig Pawson
VAR: Constantine Hatzidakis
This game had everything: Two stoppage-time goals from West Ham to salvage extra-time, as well as two disallowed goals for the Hammers after that. It had goalkeeper Alphonse Areola taken off with a leg injury minutes from the final whistle, only for 20-year-old debutant Finlay Herrick to come off the bench and save the first penalty in the shootout.
Ultimately, Leeds went through with a 4-2 victory on penalties, but could the game have been different had VAR made different calls? Here we assess the controversial decisions in the game, aside from the obvious penalty awarded to Leeds for a foul on Brenden Aaronson by West Ham's Max Kilman in the 73rd minute.
play
1:13
West Ham United vs. Leeds United - Game Highlights
Watch the Game Highlights from West Ham United vs. Leeds United, 04/05/2026
Time: 33 minutes
Incident: Possible penalty to Leeds
What happened: West Ham defender Kilman clattered into Leeds midfielder Anton Stach with a mistimed tackle, making contact after the Leeds player had a shoot on goal. No penalty was awarded by the referee.
VAR decision: VAR Constantine Hatzidakis agreed with the on-field referee that no foul challenge had been committed by the West Ham defender despite the clear contact following Stach's shot on goal.
Hatzidakis took his time to review the replays; however, his final analysis was that the late contact by Kilman in this incident was a natural coming together of two players and did not meet the threshold for a foul by the West Ham defender and he cleared the on-field decision as correct.
Verdict: In real time, this looked like a foul, and I expected a penalty kick to be awarded. Having watched the replays, I have seen nothing to change my opinion, and I'm surprised this wasn't recognised on-field by referee Craig Pawson as the challenge was very late by Killman, who clattered into Stach.
It can be difficult from pitch level to judge the level of contact in these types of situations, certainly in real time as your focus can be drawn to the outcome of the shot and the potential next phase. Pawson obviously wasn't sure and was not prepared to guess, which I am comfortable with. However, the replays were conclusive in my opinion.
The shot was taken by Stach a good time before Killman slid into the Leeds player at a level of speed, so it is difficult to understand the non-intervention from VAR or their rationale that it was two players meeting in natural circumstances that created contact.
This incident should have resulted in an on-field review at the pitchside monitor and a penalty awarded.
Leeds' Ethan Ampadu escaped a red card after purposely taking down Adama Traore who was launching a counter-attack. John Walton/PA Images via Getty Images
Time: 48 minutes
Incident: Possible red card for Leeds defender Ethan Ampadu
What happened: Ethan Ampadu lunged into the back of West Ham's Adama Traoré and picked up a yellow card for the challenge.
VAR decision: VAR cleared the on-field decision of yellow card, deeming the challenge as reckless, citing the contact on Traoré was minimal and glancing. The on-field communication from referee Craig Pawson described this challenge as "poor but reckless, with minimal contact."
Verdict: That description from referee Pawson is the starting point for a VAR check. The VAR would have been uncomfortable with the nature of the challenge by Ampadu, however the level contact did not meet the threshold of a red card challenge, therefore there was no clear evidence that an error had been made.
A yellow card is technically the correct outcome from both the on-field referee and the VAR, as the details of the challenge do not meet the criteria for a red card. Make no mistake, though, Ampadu was fortunate.
This was not a good tackle, the nature of which many referees and players would like to be considered as a red card offence regardless of the level of contact. It's a cowardly challenge and one that if misjudged could cause significant injury. By the rules, the refereeing team had to give a yellow card as the contract was on the side of Traoré's calf and was glancing.
play
0:37
Cherki furious after penalty no-call
Manchester City's Rayan Cherki goes down under pressure from Milos Kerkez, but isn't happy to his penalty claims waved off.
Referee: Michael Oliver
VAR: Paul Howard
Time: 17 minutes
Incident: Possible penalty to Man City
What happened: City's Rayan Cherki tries to step around Liverpool defender Milos Kerkez, who made a challenge for the ball. Cherki ended up on the floor as his City teammates demanded a penalty. Pep Guardiola, who was watching the game from the stands due to a touchline ban, looked indignant when TV cameras showed him looking at a replay.
VAR decision: Referee Michael Oliver decided no penalty given, with VAR quickly checking and agreeing. VAR deemed that Kerkez's challenge was not a foul.
Verdict: As we always discuss, the starting point for any review is with the referee's on-field decision and their rationale given. On-field communications from referee Oliver described Kerkez playing the ball in the first contact, with the second contact created by both the attacker and the defender's natural movement and no foul action by the defender. The VAR was comfortable that the referee's interpretation of the incident in real time matched that of the replays and cleared the decision as correct.
It is the right call. City players showed their frustrations, but for a penalty to be awarded a clear foul would have had to have taken place to send the referee to the pitchside monitor. As described by Oliver, the second contact, which left Cherki on the floor, was a combination of both players' natural movement with inevitable contact being made. There will be a view that Cherki dragged his left leg to try and find contact and create a foul, and there is evidence of this being the case.
These types of situations can be misread by a referee. However, Oliver was well positioned and judged the incident for what it was.
play
0:34
O'Reilly earns City a penalty after Van Dijk foul
Manchester City's Nico O'Reilly draws a penalty from Liverpool's Virgil Van Dijk.
Time: 38 minutes
Incident: Penalty awarded to Man City
What happened: Liverpool's Virgil van Dijk challenged Nico O'Reilly in the penalty with the city player ending up on the floor. Referee Michael Oliver did not hesitate and pointed to the penalty spot.
VAR decision: It was a very quick review for VAR Paul Howard. He was happy the on-field decision was correct and cleared the decision.
Verdict: It is a mystery why Van Dijk seemed so upset with the referee's decision. It was without a doubt the correct decision. The Liverpool captain was late with his tackle and made no contact with the ball. It was a clear foul and penalty.
play
0:23
Ekitike wins a penalty for Liverpool
Hugo Ekitike gets past Matheus Nunes and draws a penalty for Liverpool.
Time: 38 minutes
Incident: Penalty awarded to Liverpool
What happened: Man City defender Matheus Nunes caught Liverpool forward Hugo Ekitike late with a challenge in the City area. Referee Oliver had a great position and awarded a penalty to Liverpool.
VAR decision: The on-field decision of a penalty kick was checked and cleared.
Verdict: This was a very straightforward review for the VAR, and, in truth, he would have known his position in real time as it was such an obvious and unnecessary foul by Nunes. However, a full check process must still be completed using three alternative camera angles to confirm that he was comfortable the on-field decision was correct.
A correct on-field decision by Michael Oliver, and not one that would have tested him too much. The challenge was late, unnecessary and a strange decision by Nunes, as Ekitike was running to the goal line with little danger.
From a VAR perspective, they don't get simpler than that as an incident review. It was a good afternoon for Oliver and VAR Paul Howard following a week when VAR had had a lot of negative noise -- three in four match-going fans in England have opposed VAR in a survey.
The officiating team at Etihad Stadium will be pleased with their work.