The inconsistency of VAR on penalties
Everton were denied a penalty through VAR, yet Fulham got a spot-kick. It shows why VAR and penalties will never be consistent.
On Saturday, Everton were adamant they should have been given a penalty.
Arsenal defender William Saliba had kicked the boot of Thierno Barry. Referee Sam Barrott said no and, after some deliberation, he was backed up by the video assistant referee (VAR), Michael Salisbury.
On Monday, Fulham's match-winning penalty against Nottingham Forest came after Douglas Luiz had lightly kicked the foot of Kevin. Referee Anthony Taylor pointed to the spot.
Fans might well say the Saliba challenge looked like more of a penalty. The key difference? The on-field decision.
In the early days of VAR in the Premier League there were many soft penalties. Most memorable is probably the spot-kick given to Brighton when Liverpool's Andy Robertson kicked the boot of Danny Welbeck, who went down theatrically.
So ahead of the 2021-22 season the threshold for a VAR intervention was raised.
Now when two players challenge for a ball which is off the ground, and both have a realistic prospect of winning it, the VAR is not expected to give a spot-kick if one player gets there marginally faster.
Indeed, two seasons ago Arsenal's Gabriel Jesus wanted a penalty against Aston Villa when he was kicked, coincidentally, by Douglas Luiz.
The Premier League's Key Match Incidents Panel voted the VAR was correct not to get involved in the incident, which had similarities to Saliba on Barry.
The issue is that, as we saw with Fulham's spot-kick, if the referee had given the penalty to Everton the VAR would not have said it was wrong.
In Europe, Saliba's challenge would almost certain have been a penalty.
European leagues penalise these offences more strictly to ensure consistency.
In the Premier League, the high bar means the on-field decision is more important - and that can only lead to inconsistencies, perceived or otherwise.
What's Your Reaction?
