Why Brentford's goal vs. Chelsea wasn't ruled out for offside; Maddison's VAR rage

Video Assistant Referee causes contention each week successful the Premier League, but however are decisions made, and are they correct?

After each play we instrumentality a look astatine the large incidents, to analyse and explicate the process some successful presumption of VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game.

In this week's VAR Review: Should Brentford's stoppage-time equaliser against Chelsea person been disallowed? Why was a Tottenham Hotspur extremity astatine West Ham United ruled out? And should Wolverhampton Wanderers person been reduced to 10 men astatine Newcastle United?

Brentford 2-2 Chelsea

Possible offside: Ouattara connected Carvalho extremity

What happened: Brentford scored an equaliser 3 minutes into stoppage clip erstwhile Fábio Carvalho guided the shot location aft Kristoffer Ajer had flicked connected Michael Kayode's agelong throw. As the players celebrated, the VAR, James Bell, checked for a imaginable offside offence wrong the determination by Dango Ouattara.

VAR decision: Goal stands.

VAR review: This went nether the radar amid the play of Brentford's precocious goal, and galore are astir apt unaware determination was an offside cheque against Ouattara.

You can't beryllium offside from a throw-in, but erstwhile Ajer touches the shot that creates a signifier and Ouattara was stood up of Chelsea defender Reece James, truthful offside. Ouattara didn't interaction the ball, truthful it was a subjective judgement for the VAR to find impact.

Ouattara can't perpetrate an offside offence by his presumption alone. He's not blocking the imaginativeness of James, and doesn't tally crossed the enactment of the ball. But the instrumentality does accidental that a subordinate commits an offence if they are "clearly attempting to play a shot which is adjacent erstwhile this enactment impacts connected an opponent."

Ouattara stuck retired a limb arsenic the shot went done to Carvalho, truthful that was portion of the clause satisfied. But did that interaction James?

The on-field squad told the VAR that they knew Ouattara was offside, but they didn't consciousness helium did thing to trigger an offence truthful the extremity was given.

Verdict: It volition divided opinion, and it depends however you measurement up 1 important aspect; arsenic the shot was past Ouattara and successful beforehand of James erstwhile the Brentford subordinate made an effort to interaction the ball, does that make capable of an interaction connected the defender for VAR to intervene?

Had Ouattara tried to play the shot instantly arsenic it went past him, frankincense influencing James' calculation of the formation of the ball, it's a overmuch clearer offside offence.

As Ouattara made a precocious movement, it created uncertainty implicit the level of interaction with James afloat focused connected the shot and failing to marque contact.

While it mightiness person seemed similar a speedy check, it did instrumentality 1 infinitesimal 28 seconds -- a small longer than the jubilant extremity celebration. When the tv sum switched to the VAR output, you could spot that Bell was weighing up the timing of Ouattara's movement.

Depending connected who was connected VAR work you could get a antithetic outcome. It's 1 of the over-riding issues with VAR, due to the fact that it's conscionable different furniture of subjective mentation and referees won't ever agree. Likewise, fans tin reason astir this mentation -- and ne...