The commentary during the Man U v West Ham pointed out how the criteria for VAR reviewed penalties has been changed to be more stringent. Done a little digging, and will use one of the penalty shouts from that game as an example of it in action and maybe why some penalty shouts last Season that were given won't be this Season. https://www.espn.co.uk/football/eng...l-whats-new-in-the-premier-league-for-2021-22 The 3rd and 4th points will be pivotal this Season, as exampled with Ronaldo touching the ball to the side but ran straight on into the outstretched leg rather than trying to follow where the ball was going (https://streamable.com/facd8a) so wasn't given despite this being last Season being a stonewall penalty. Following the criteria: The referee should look for contact and establish clear contact - Ronaldo clearly goes over the out stretched leg of the defender Ask if that contact by the defender has a consequence - Ronaldo was in a dangerous position running at pace, with the outstretched leg potentially denying a DOGSO Has the attacker used that contact to try and win a foul or penalty? - This is where VAR decides against a penalty decision. Ronalo touches it wide of the defender but critically runs forward, into the leg than following the path of the ball so is deemeed to have created the contact to win a penalty than it being the defender blocking Ronaldo from the ball. Contact alone is not sufficient - There is more than enough contact here to consider the incident. Looking at the Norwich penalty shout at 51:00 (https://streamja.com/jq73V) and our penalty shout at 86:40 (https://streamja.com/59GOn) from my perspective, both appear to be referee mistakes but the Premier League's self imposed "clear and obvious" rule hinders the decisions here to at least have a review for both decisions if the referee felt the they dived / went over too easily. Following the criteria: The referee should look for contact and establish clear contact - Both are knocked over by the opposition player with sufficient force for it not to be a dive. Ask if that contact by the defender has a consequence - Both players were in a position to get a shot off at goal, so potential DOGSO. Has the attacker used that contact to try and win a foul or penalty? - Neither were "looking" for the contact or trying to initiate it. Contact alone is not sufficient - This is most likely where both fell down on using this ruling. However, both incidents look like where the opposition player are expressely trying to knock over the other player to stop play than it being "light" contact such as Harry Kane's v Aston Villa last Season. (https://streamable.com/tct1if) I get the distinct impression that 3rd criteria will remove a lot of "soft" penalties we've become accustomed to these last few years now.
Although it’s always going to be subjective and difficult to get 100% correct I’m glad we’ve arrived at this point, it’s how it should be. Some of the penalties given over the years have been truly pathetic in terms of the contact made, contact that would never in a million years cause a professional athlete to fall over. I’ve always thought that needed to be taken into consideration but we found ourselves in a ridiculous culdesac for many years where contact = penalty irrelevant of context.
