PGMOL and the Premier League are opening up discussions between the referee and the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) for key incidents this season. In the latest instalment of "Match Officials Mic'd Up" in 2024/25, Howard Webb, chief operating officer at PGMOL, discusses five recent incidents.
Webb and Michael Owen go through the conversations between the match officials to give fans greater knowledge of how decisions are made. The officials on the pitch do not hear all the conversations from the VAR hub in Stockley Park.
The incidents covered are:
- Caicedo's challenge v Spurs
- Ndidi's tackle v Chelsea
- Cairney's red card v Spurs
- Norgaard's red card v Everton
- Stephens' red card v Chelsea
- Southampton's penalty v Liverpool
Caicedo's challenge v Spurs
Incident: Tottenham Hotspur midfielder Pape Sarr is dribbling when caught on the shin by the outstretched foot of Chelsea's Moises Caicedo.
What the match officials did: Referee Anthony Taylor gives a free-kick to Spurs and doesn't award a yellow card to Caicedo. VAR Jarred Gillett acknowledges Caicedo catches Sarr, but believes there isn't enough impact to warrant a "clear and obvious error" of the referee's call and ask Taylor to review the decision.
Owen: "Howard, do you think that a red card should have been shown there?"
Webb: "I think a yellow card should have been shown. Caicedo received no disciplinary sanction for that action. I think his actions are reckless. I know there was talk about the possibility of this being a red card. Some people felt it was. It's not a red card for me. This is a situation where Moises Caicedo goes to swing to kick a ball, which is kicked away from him by Pape Sarr.
"That swinging action continues into the leg of Sarr. You'll see the foot comes through. It comes off really quickly, back on to the ground. Slow motion can sometimes distort reality. When you watch it at full speed, it hits the shin and comes down into the ground. For me, that's reckless. It's not serious foul play because it's not excessive force. It doesn't endanger the safety of Pape Sarr."
Owen: "Is that what saves him? That if he actually follows through here, it could be a leg-breaker. It is, quite high. But the fact that his foot then plants, it's not got so much power behind it."
Webb: "It is high. But slow motion, freeze frames, can make something look quite different. At full speed, there's no real energy coming through that foot into the shin. It comes off really quickly. So there's not the kind of exertion of force through into the opponent's leg which would do the damage. This hits the leg and comes off quickly.
"It's an action to strike, not forcing all his weight through that front foot. So it should be a yellow card for reckless action, but falls short of being serious foul play because it's a kick to the leg and then it comes off quickly as opposed to that force being driven through into the opponent’s leg."
See: Rules for serious foul play
Ndidi's tackle v Chelsea
Incident: Leicester City's Wilfred Ndidi is chasing Chelsea's Cole Palmer and dives in, proceeding to catch him on the back of his legs.
What the match officials did: Referee Andy Madley awards a foul from Ndidi, to whom he shows a yellow card, believing there to be not enough intensity to merit a sending-off. The VAR checks for serious foul play and says most of the contact is on Palmer's heel and isn't sufficient for the decision to be overturned.
Owen: "Caicedo [not being a red card], I can accept that. [With Ndidi] I'm very, very surprised he's not been given a red card."
Webb: "I’d prefer a red card in this situation for a few reasons. This is a tackle from behind by Ndidi. The contact is on a pretty vulnerable part of Cole Palmer's anatomy, by the Achilles. The actual contact initially is with the instep as opposed to with the studs. He comes in and doesn't really have a great chance of winning the ball.
"He makes contact higher on the leg and then slides down. The most forceful contact, where the studs really come in, is on the heel. But still there's a lot of force. There’s contact before that on the Achilles. And when you factor all of those things in: the way he comes into the tackle, the mode of contact where it makes contact, this is much more aligned with serious foul play that endangers Cole Palmer's safety.
"Now the VAR looked at that. The referee's call was a yellow card for a reckless tackle. The VAR felt that because that contact came down quite quickly on to the heel, on to the boot, it didn't go past the threshold for being a 'clear and obvious error' and 'check-completed' the yellow card.
"We've looked at this collectively, among the officials, talked about this, and we would prefer this to be dealt with with a red card. We have to protect player safety. That contact stays on the legs for quite some time, by the way, unlike what we saw with Caicedo when it came off very quickly. So different part of the body, different type of contact, different level of danger to the opponent.
"In this case, Coach Palmer thankfully wasn't seriously injured. But these sorts of tackles need to be dealt with through a red card.
Owen: "Absolutely. Because you see the force. Both feet are off the ground. And obviously the first contact was on the Achilles tendon. So that, to me as an ex-footballer, that is a damaging tackle as opposed to the first one."
Cairney's red card v Spurs
Incident: Fulham's Tom Cairney commits a foul on Spurs' Dejan Kulusevski by lunging on him from behind.
What the match officials did: Referee Darren Bond issues Cairney a yellow card. However Craig Pawson the VAR deems that the nature of the foul constitute's serious foul play and recommends an on-field review to Bond. After review, Bond awards Cairney a red card.
Webb: "There are some similarities, [with the Caicedo and Ndidi fouls], some differences as well. So in this situation Tom Cairney’s studs come in to the back of Kulusevski’s calf. And it stays there, it stays high. He ends up with all of his body weight going through. The other foot comes up. It causes that almost twisting of the ankle as well.
"So a really dangerous tackle misread on the field by the referee, who's looking from behind. Sometimes it's not so easy to see things from behind. He gives a yellow. And it's a good example of VAR coming in to rectify a very clear and obvious error in the referee's call. And a good example of serious foul play endangering the safety of the opponent."
Owen: "When the referee went to the monitor, he actually saw in real-time first as well. We like that, I presume."
Webb: "Yes. If you slow things down and pause them in certain moments, you can make it look horrendously bad. And we were criticized quite heavily in the early days of VAR for showing things in slow-motion, pausing things, showing the referee at the screen just a freeze-frame of something that looks really bad that when you play in full speed, it looks quite different.
"So we've said to the VARs, analyze it in full speed. When you get to the screen, show it in full speed, then show it in a slower motion if you need to identify the exact point of contact. This one was done in that way."
Norgaard's overturned red card v Everton
Incident: A ball is played across Everton's six-yard box and Brentford's Christian Norgaard attempts to get to it before Jordan Pickford. He does not reach the ball and instead catches Pickford on his knee.
What the match officials did: Referee Chris Kavanagh awards Everton a free-kick for the a foul on Pickford. VAR official Matt Donohue recommends Kavanagh to review the incident for serious foul play. After review, Kavanagh issues Norgaard a red card.
However, Brentford later appealed against the red card decision and were successful in getting it rescinded.
Webb: "I was surprised by the the outcome of the appeal. Of course, I respect the judgment of the panel. I would have expected them to see this in the way I did as an act of serious foul play when the studs go into the knee of Jordan Pickford as it endangers his safety.
"So they made a judgment that it wasn't at that level, that the decision was incorrect. But I didn't agree with that judgment."
Owen: "I have a slightly different view. When I'm a centre-forward thinking about scoring here - you'd agree he's not trying to injure Jordan Pickford here - if that's in the middle of the pitch then I agree that's probably a red card. You're never going to tell any goalscorer it might hurt this person or that person. You've got to try to score. No sympathy there [for Norgaard]? Is there no way you can change the rule in any way?"
Webb: "I do sympathize. And like you, I don't think that Christian Norgaard has gone in there to try to hurt Jordan Pickford any way. He's gone to try to get something on a ball in front of goal. But to do that, he's had to stretch out with a raised foot, with studs exposed to an opponent who's in front of him, and we have to deal with consequences.
"We have to identify whether or not the actions have endangered the opponent's safety. When Norgaard does that, he's obviously hoping to get the ball, but there's a risk associated with it. There's a risk of stretching in in that way. Now, we also heard the referee on the clip talk about how the leg straightens.
"Well, he actually does after the ball is just gone past the leg straightens a little bit into Pickford. That's something the official saw as well. So there's quite a lot of force going into that vulnerable part of the body with a knee from the studs. There's a risk when he when lunges in that way. And when he fails to make contact with the ball and makes contact with Pickford in this way, the consequences are that his safety is in danger and therefore it's an act of serious play."
Stephens' red card v Chelsea
Incident: At a Southampton corner, Marc Cucurella is marking Jack Stephens and before the ball is sent into the penalty area, the Saints defender pulls the Chelsea defender's hair.
What the match officials did: Referee Tony Harrington stops play and the VAR tells him to delay the restart. The VAR recommends an on-field review for violent conduct. After review, Harrington issues Stephens a red card.
Owen: "OK, so what are the exact rules when it comes to hair pulling?"
Webb: "When we're looking at assessing a possible violent-conduct act, contact to the head or the face that's more than negligible is violent conduct. If I slap you, if I push you to the head of the face, that's violent conduct in a way that it wouldn't be if it was to the body or the chest necessarily.
"In terms of hair pulling, there is an accepted position whereby when you tug somebody's hair, you get sent off. It's seen as violent conduct, maybe just a touch of the hair would be negligible. So that wouldn't be. But as soon as you start tugging people's hair, then you are almost certainly going to get sent off for violent conduct because it's more than negligible contact."
Owen: "Is that violent conduct? I mean it's three games. He's going to get four games now because it's his second red card of the season. Is it not more ungentlemanly conduct? Is it really violent?"
Webb: "It just crosses that line of acceptable behaviour on the field of play. If you start pulling people's hair, there's absolutely no reason to do that. People don't want to see that happening. And therefore players understand. In most circumstances, it will be seen as more than negligible contact when you start tugging hair, and you're going to get a red card. And, I can't imagine that Jack Stevens will make that mistake again."
See: Rules for violent conduct
Southampton's penalty v Liverpool
Incident: Southampton's Tyler Dibling is running towards the Liverpool penalty area when he is brought down by Liverpool left-back Andrew Robertson.
What the match officials did: The assistant referee believes the foul is committed on the line of the area and so referee Sam Barrott issues a penalty to Southampton. The VAR and AVAR confirm Barrott's on-field call.
Webb: "I like the process throughout this situation. You see Sam Barrott, the referee, identify the foul, penalize the foul and consult with his on-field colleague for the location. The information he receives is that it's inside the penalty area or at least on the line, so he gives a penalty kick. The VAR then has the job of trying to identify whether or not the award of a penalty kick is clearly and obviously wrong.
"There could be two ways it could be wrong. It could be not foul or it could be outside the penalty area. Michael Oliver, the VAR, quickly identifies that is a foul. Then [he] does some work to identify whether or not it's inside or outside [the penalty area].
"And it's not totally conclusive there is some contact between the two legs. Looks like it's over the line, but maybe Dibling is already falling a little bit. But the VAR determines that you can't say it's conclusively wrong. It has to be [conclusively wrong] for him to get involved here. So therefore we refer back to the on-field decision."
Glossary of terms
VAR: Video Assistant Referee; AVAR: Assistant Video Assistant Referee; RO: replay operator; APP: attacking phase of play.
UK users can watch the whole "Match Officials Mic'd Up" video on Sky Sports and TNT Sports. International users can access the full video with their local rights-holder.
Also in this series
