Premier League VAR review: Was Sunderland's penalty legit vs. Arsenal?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.