Analyzing the big VAR incidents in the Champions League knockouts this season

VAR is the latest innovation that the UEFA has added to its premier club competition, the Champions League. In the past, there have been decisions that have favored certain clubs, not necessarily because of a bias. We all know about Tom Henning Overbo's utterly poor performance in the Chelsea-Barca game in 2009. The Norwegian gave decisions that on the night favored Barcelona more than it did for Chelsea. Chelsea had four shouts for a penalty waved off by the ref, one of them rightly, but at least two of them should have resulted in a spot kick.

We know about Viktor Kassai who officiated Bayern Munich's return leg against Real Madrid in the quarterfinals. The red card to Arturo Vidal, clearly dubious, changed the momentum of the game followed by an offside goal by Cristiano Ronaldo. The goal, a decision which was certain to be overturned by VAR.

VAR has its limitations and it has its advantage. It causes a lot of time wasting which not all referees would adjust into the additional time and in a game, even a minute could be worth it. It also depends on the mindset of the referee, some referees would give certain decisions which won't necessarily be the same for others.

This season, after successful implementation in the FIFA World Cup and LaLiga, UEFA decided to have VAR for the knockout stages of the Champions League. In no time, the new advancement has made its impact and played a deciding role in at least two of the four ties played.

Let us look at the decisions given and see if it was right or wrong:

---

#3 Porto vs Roma (Penalty)

The foul on Fernando clearly stopped him from getting a touch on the ball. A right decision.

The first leg game between Porto and Roma which was played at Rome ended 2-1 in favor of the home side. However, Porto headed home with an all-important away goal. With the scoreline reading 2-1 after 90 minutes, the game headed to extra time. The VAR intervention came late into extra time in the 118th minute.

Florenzi's challenge on Fernando was reviewed by VAR and referee Cuneyt Cakir pointed straight to the spot. Telles converted from the spot thus sending Porto through to the quarter-finals.

Verdict:

The decision was 100%, a correct one. Maxi Pereira had zipped a ball across the face of goal just inches wide of the far post. Fernando could easily have guided the ball inside with a touch of the ball. However, Florenzi clipped his shirt and stopped him from getting that touch. Since the intervention from Florenzi had clearly denied Porto a goalscoring opportunity, a penalty was the correct decision.

#2 Real Madrid vs Ajax [ Disallowed goal (1st leg), a 3rd goal given (2nd leg) ]

Tadic is in Courtois' path but also the header has already connected with the ball when Courtois hit Tadic. This was an even call.

We now move onto two big decisions that the VAR gave in the Ajax vs Real Madrid tie, one in favor of and the other against the Dutch side. In the first leg of the tie at Amsterdam, Nicolas Tagliafico had apparently put Ajax ahead with his header and the stadium burst into celebration. However, their celebrations were short-lived as VAR rejected their claims for a goal.

The next decision by VAR was given in the second leg, in favor of Ajax. The Santiago Bernabeu cried foul moments after Tadic's goal which put Ajax 4-2 ahead on aggregate. The goal was reviewed by VAR for a possible throw-in that was not given. However, this time the goal stood, to Madrid's dismay, even after certain angles showed that the ball had actually crossed the line.

Verdict: Disallowed goal

First, let us look at the first decision that happened in Amsterdam. Tagliafico had headed the ball into the net perfectly, with no fouls on any defenders or the keeper while scoring. However, UEFA themselves gave a detailed explanation of why the goal wasn't given. Apparently, Dusan Tadic was in an offside position and even though he did not intervene with the goal, he was in Thibaut Courtois way of punching the ball clear. Thus, the goal wasn't given.

It is a 50/50, even though not 100% the right decision, it is not a wrong one either. It depends on how the referee sees it. If he thinks that Tadic wasn't doing anything intentionally to block Courtois or Courtois deliberately did not go around Tadic, then it would have been given. Here, as UEFA explained in their tweet, the referee saw that Tadic was interfering with Courtois' path to the ball, so he disallowed it. It is a correct decision since the referee saw it that way.

Verdict: The goal that stood in the second leg

In the second leg, Dusan Tadic scored a screamer to put the game to bed. The third goal gave Ajax a 4-2 aggregate lead and also a lead on away goals. However, then VAR came into play with a review on the goal. Possibly, the ball had rolled out of play before the build-up to the goal started.

. @ChampionsLeague x @BTBrianTaylor 💬 'THAT WAS OUT OF BOUNDS!!'😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/N2BYWvCUwJ

— FOX Sports Football (@FOXFOOTBALL) March 5, 2019

The commentator can be heard screaming that the ball had gone out of bounds. But what if we say that VAR was right to allow the goal? You heard it right. It was again, a correct decision by VAR.

The thing is, the ball is not out of bounds until it crosses the white line completely. Since it is a spherical object, a perspective view can show that it is out of bounds, while actually, it can be in bounds. Simply, from a side view it, the whole ball has crossed the white line but while viewing from the top, it would still graze the white line and that is enough to adjudge the ball inbounds.

#1 PSG vs Manchester United (Penalty)

The incident which caused the penalty. Manchester United will have to consider themselves lucky that this was given.

The latest VAR decision which has the whole fraternity divided is the penalty call for Manchester United against PSG. The Red Devils came into Paris with many key members of the team including Martial, Lingard, and Alexis, unfit for the game. They fielded what should be called a reserve team.

Bailly as right back, Ashley Young, Fred, and Andreas Pereira were the midfielders, and Scott McTominay was in the right wing. The substitutes? Mason Greenwood, Tahith Chong, Diogo Dalot, James Garner, Angel Gomes, and Sergio Romero. What else can we call this team but a reserve team? What is surprising is that PSG blew a 2-0 lead, and two away goals away.

Manchester United had Romelu Lukaku to thank for being diligent all the time. He pounced onto the back-pass from Kehrer and converted it into a goal and he pounced on Buffon's spill and converted that too. In the 91st minute, the Red Devils got the prize for their toils, a spot-kick that could send them through. The villain for PSG, VAR.

Verdict:

Diogo Dalot's shot was blocked by Presnel Kimpembe and possibly with his hands which had to be awarded as a spot kick. But the question is, was that an intentional handball? A penalty or foul cannot be given if the ball hits the hands coincidentally.

It has to be said that the call was a fair one yet a bit harsh on Kimpembe. The orientation of his body shows that he is trying to face away from the ball and block it. However, the thing is that he has left his right-hand dangling out, right on the path of the ball, far away from the body for the referee's liking.

It can be given both ways. It can be argued that it was purely unintentional and just a reflex action of saving himself from the ball. But what goes in favor of the referee is what is that hand doing that far out from his body in the correct height of the ball. In a risk situation, if we want to protect ourselves, as people are arguing that Kimpembe was, both our hands move in coordination. It cannot be that one of the hands covers the face while the other is moving away, which is happening here. There are no attempts to pull the hand closer to the body too.

We don't know what Kimpembe was doing but it cannot be argued that he didn't leave the hand out on purpose. The referee does not deserve any abuses for a decision that he gave. Even though a bit harsh, the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side because they clearly had a shot blocked and the defender had left his hand dangling away from his body.

50/50 call, a fair decision but a bit harsh too.