PGMOL chief Howard Webb believes VAR was right to overturn the decision to award Liverpool a penalty against Wolves and stated Diogo Jota should have received a yellow card for simulation.
Jota raced into the penalty area before cutting in and going down, following a sliding challenge from Wolves defender Emmanuel Agbadou, with referee Simon Hooper initially awarding a penalty for Arne Slot's side before it was checked and overturned by VAR.
WHAT THE OFFICIALS SAID:
Assistant VAR: "He's not complaining about it. I think he kicks him on that angle there. He actually dangles the left leg out. I think the attacker initiates the contact there."
VAR: "We've got a sliding in, and it makes contact with the hip. Doesn't catch him with the leg that tackles but we've got contact with the hip.
"He misses him and then kicks him. I cannot see a penalty at all. I'm going to recommend a review on that, I can't see a penalty at all."
Referee: "Defender goes in, looks like a stonewall decision and takes him out from where I am. I'm going to restart with a drop ball to the keeper."
HOWARD WEBB'S VERDICT:
"Good use of VAR to overturn a quite clearly incorrect on-field decision. I think many people thought this was a penalty at full speed. From the pitch level, that's certainly what the referee saw.
"But, of course, the VAR looks at it and can see that the defender has come past the attacker before there's any sort of contact. It's not a penalty kick and, therefore, recommended a review.
"So, exactly what the VAR should do, change that pretty crucial on-field decision that was incorrect and make it right. I think the officials got really focused on the need to overturn the penalty.
"Our advice to them will be, obviously, when they go to the screen, it's not just about overturning the on-field decision, it's looking at all aspects of it. Diego Jota acts in a way that's meant to deceive the referee here, simulation, and, therefore, a yellow card should have been issued."
Should Brooks have seen red for pulling Cucurella's hair against Chelsea?
Incident: David Brooks avoided a red card against Chelsea following a coming together with defender Marc Cucurella. VAR reviewed the situation and advised referee Rob Jones to check the monitor for potential violent conduct but after assessing the footage, it was not deemed "brutality" and a yellow card was given.
WHAT THE OFFICIALS SAID:
Assistant VAR: "Does he pull his hair? The hair comes back but I can't see."
VAR: "I see an arm deliberately across. I would describe it as a clothesline pull. I think we're going to have to recommend a review. We only have one angle to show you.
"I'm going to recommend an on-field review for potential violent conduct."
Referee: "We've got a coming together between Brooks and Cucurella. All I've seen is him fall over, it's behind my back. I'm seeing him run past him and then grab him.
"There is an arm that comes around the shoulder and ends up round the neck, but it looks more aggressive than violent for me.
"I'm going to give a yellow based on what I'm seeing. I don't think it's brutality personally. On-field decision is going to be a free-kick and it's going to be a yellow card."
WEBB'S VERDICT:
"It's the first time a referee has been sent to the screen for a red card and not produced one. There is a good reason why.
"This situation is different. The referee didn't see any of it on the field. It was not something he was looking at as they come together.
"When he goes down and VAR looks at the footage, he is the first official to see it. When he sees the left arm come around the front of Cucurella, he calls it a clothesline.
"He thinks it could be a red and thinks the referee needs to look at that. It has to be something VAR believes could be a red.
"When he gets there, he looks at it and says based on the footage he thinks it is not quite a red card. The footage is not clear. The arm comes across the chest and it's difficult to see the force. I don't think he pulls Cucurella's hair. The hands touches the hair. On balance, Rob Jones makes the right decision.
"It is reckless and shows a yellow. It was a good use of VAR."
Should Malen's goal for Villa have stood against Wolves?
Incident: Aston Villa forward Donyell Malen saw a goal ruled out against Wolves after Morgan Rogers' was adjudged to have interfered with play from an offside position in the build-up.
Rogers acted as a blocker against Nelson Semedo and was deemed to have prevented him reaching John McGinn, who crossed the ball into the box for Malen to tap home.
WHAT THE OFFICIALS SAID:
Assistant Referee 1: "Is Rogers blocking? Offside, Rogers blocking for McGinn. Confirming the on-field decision."
Referee: "Yes he was. On-field decision is offside. Morgan Rogers and he knows it.
VAR: "There's clear contact from Rogers there. That has an impact on 22's [Semedo] ability to get the ball for McGinn. Confirming the on-field decision of offside.
"Rogers is in an offside position and impacts on Semedo's ability to play the ball. Check complete."
WEBB'S VERDICT:
"This was a decision taken by the on-field officials. You see Rogers move across the back of the defensive line. He knows by standing there, he will likely block the movement of Semedo.
"This wouldn't be a normal foul for holding or blocking if he was not offside. Being in an offside position and impacting the player's ability to play or challenge for the ball. He has to go a longer way round and can't block the cross from McGinn. Good recognition, awareness and final decision."
