Video assistant referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but also in the UEFA Champions League. So, 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: Danny Makkelie
VAR: Dennis Higler
Time: 37 minutes
Incident: Penalty awarded to Arsenal
What happened: As Arsenal attacker Viktor Gyökeres neatly received the ball in the Atlético penalty area, defender Dávid Hancko appeared to clatter into the back of the Arsenal player. With Gyökeres on the ground, referee Danny Makkelie pointed to the spot, awarding Arsenal a penalty for a careless foul challenge.
VAR decision: VAR did not require too many looks at this challenge and quickly cleared the on-field decision as correct.
Verdict / Insight: Yes, this was a correct on-field decision and non-intervention from VAR. The challenge by Hancko was clumsy and unwise. Gyökeres’ clever body position left the Atlético defender with no opportunity to play the ball, and this was a poor judgment by the Atlético player.
ARSENAL STRIKE FIRST ⚡️
Viktor Gyökeres clinical from the spot to put the English side in front 💥 pic.twitter.com/IBVZRLgvQC
— CBS Sports Golazo ⚽️ (@CBSSportsGolazo) April 29, 2026
Time: 55 minutes
Incident: Penalty awarded to Atlético Madrid following a handball offense by Arsenal defender Ben White.
What happened: A shot on goal by Atlético Madrid’s Marcos Llorente struck the arm of Arsenal’s Ben White. However, a deflection off the shin of the defender before the ball struck his arm created a level of debate. The on-field referee eventually awarded a penalty following a visit to the VAR screen.
VAR decision: Another relatively quick review by VAR in this event, and on this occasion, he felt there was a clear error in a penalty not being awarded on the field. VAR Higler felt that White’s arm was in an unnatural position relative to his body movement, and regardless of the deflection off the defender’s shin, which was negligible, he felt this met the criteria for a handball offense. Having viewed the replays for himself, Makkelie agreed with the VAR interpretation and gave Atlético Madrid a penalty.
Verdict / Insight: A clearer decision than the contentious penalty awarded to Paris Saint-Germain last night, given White’s arm position when the ball struck him. The Arsenal defender’s arm was outstretched, away from his body, and clearly making his body shape unnaturally bigger, leaving him vulnerable to being penalized for a handball offense. The deflection in this situation is irrelevant. It was negligible, barely affecting the trajectory of the ball, but the position of the arm negated any deflection considerations. A penalty was the correct decision.
Unlike last night’s decision, this incident would be penalized in the Premier League for a handball offense.
WHAT A HIT 😤💥
Julián Álvarez fires in the equalizer for Atlético 🎯 pic.twitter.com/peQF9AJ7SO
— CBS Sports Golazo ⚽️ (@CBSSportsGolazo) April 29, 2026
Time: 81 minutes
Incident: VAR overturn; Arsenal had a penalty award overturned via a VAR review.
What happened: Atlético Madrid defender Hancko appeared to trip Arsenal’s Eberechi Eze in the penalty area, with referee Makkelie pointing to the spot, awarding a penalty to the Gunners. Only for VAR and the referee to overturn the award following an on-field review.
VAR decision: Having reviewed several replays, VAR felt that there was not enough contact by the Atlético defender for a penalty to be awarded, using the rationale that any contact on Eze was minimal, adding the Arsenal attacker went over the leg of Hancko as opposed to the defender committing an obvious tripping offense.
VAR recommended an on-field review where, having viewed the replays for himself, the referee agreed with the VAR and disallowed the penalty, restarting the game with a dropped ball to the Atlético keeper Jan Oblak.
Verdict / Insight: I felt this was a penalty in real time and having seen the replays, I am still of the same opinion. Hancko was late with his challenge, making contact on the boot of Eze while making no contact with the ball, and this contact met the criteria for a careless trip.
The on-field referee had a good view of the incident and was positive with his body language and original decision.
It is difficult to understand and explain the rationale as to why there was a VAR intervention in this incident. The footage clearly shows there is foot-on-foot contact, created by a late challenge by a defender and certainly not a clear and obvious error — this must be considered a poor piece of officiating.
Equally, once the referee is looking at the screen, he has all options open to him. I can only surmise that the VAR talked the referee out of the decision, highlighting that the contact, in his opinion, was minimal and that the attacker’s motivation was to create a penalty situation as opposed to it being a foul.
In my opinion, both officials were incorrect, and Arsenal should feel aggrieved by the outcome.
NO PENALTY ❌
VAR saves Atlético from a third penalty in this match 👀 pic.twitter.com/M86rgRf4DG
— CBS Sports Golazo ⚽️ (@CBSSportsGolazo) April 29, 2026
