The VAR Review: Why Henderson should have been sent off for DOGSO

Video Assistant Referee causes controversy every week, but how are decisions made, and are they correct?

In the FA Cup final on Saturday, Manchester City felt Crystal Palace should have been reduced to 10 men when goalkeeper Dean Henderson handled outside the area. Did they have a case, or did the VAR make the correct decison?

Possible red card: DOGSO by Henderson

What happened: The game was in the 23rd minute when Josko Gvardiol played a long ball over the top for Erling Haaland to run on to. The Norway international was ahead of the defence when the Palace keeper came out to the edge of the area. As Haaland raised a boot to play the ball past Henderson, he reached out a glove and batted the ball away. Play continued as the VAR, Jarred Gillett, checked for a possible red card.

VAR decision: No red card.

VAR review: A handball offence is judged by the position of the ball when it’s touched by the hand, so even though Henderson was stood inside the area he touched the ball when it was outside. The assistant didn’t spot that the ball was outside the area, so there was no free kick given.

A goalkeeper handling outside the area isn’t in itself a sanctionable offence. Whether there should be a yellow or red card, or no action, is determined by the impact on the attacking team. You don’t get sent off for handball, but for the effect.

In VAR terms, Gillett can only get involved if he thinks there should be a red card for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity (DOGSO).

It was decided that as the ball was going away from goal, there was only the possibility of a scoring chance rather than it being obvious.

Verdict: There have been only two VAR red cards for DOGSO this season — for Arsenal’s William Saliba and Myles Lewis-Skelly — and this surely should have been a third.

The only reason the ball was going away from goal was because Henderson had illegally pushed it that way.

Without Henderson’s handball, Haaland would have been able to knock the ball past him and the actions of the goalkeeper have to tick the boxes for DOGSO.

The only possible doubt is whether Haaland’s touch would definitely have taken the ball past the goalkeeper, but there should have been an intervention.

Possible penalty overturn: Foul by Mitchell on Silva

What happened: Bernardo Silva went down inside the area under a challenge from Tyrick Mitchell in the 33rd minute. Referee Stuart Attwell pointed to the spot for a penalty, and it was checked by the VAR.

VAR decision: Penalty stands, Omar Marmoush shot saved by Henderson.

VAR review: Replays showed that Mitchell got a touch on the ball, so why was this penalty allowed to stand?

A touch on the ball isn’t in itself an automatic reason to cancel a penalty, the tackle can be of sufficient nature to support the on-field decision. The foul can come before the touch, the touch can be insignificant, or the tackle could be forceful enough for a spot kick to be a supportable decision.

Verdict: On Friday evening, Chelsea had a penalty overturned on a VAR review because Manchester United goalkeeper André Onana touched the ball.

The difference with the Onana overturn was he got an obvious touch on the ball and he had played it. For Mitchell, the VAR decided that any touch was so slight that it didn’t override the way he had made the sliding challenge.

Sticking with the on-field decision in this case is understandable, though you could forgive supporters for not understanding the difference.