How the VAR judgment calls have gone for Arsenal - 2024/25

Reviewing and keeping track of how the calls have gone for Arsenal for the 2024-25 season

Talking about referees and the decisions is not the most fun thing to do but it is a fact of life.

Because of this, I have decided it is good to keep a record of the most contentious calls that involve Arsenal and see how the decisions break down over the year. There is a feeling in the fanbase that things are heavily tilted against Arsenal but without tracking you’ll never know for sure; from last year’s exercise, it came out pretty close to 50/50 on the total calls, with a slight lean toward Arsenal getting fewer calls in their direction.

It seems like people liked the tracking so I am back doing it again.

For this, I will generally use Dale Johnson’s VAR report as the basis for tracking if things rise to the level of contentious and if others are missed I will add them and note that it was not in the report. I will use what he says and give my thoughts while tracking the overall decisions.

Contentious Call Tracking:

Calls for Arsenal: 0

Calls against Arsenal: 6

VAR overturn: 0

VAR Stay with the on-field call: 4 (2 were not reviewed by VAR for various reasons)

Expected calls for Arsenal on my gut feeling: 1.85 vs 0

Expected calls against Arsenal on my gut feeling: 4.15 vs 6

Value of decisions: -1.36 goals

updated 9/2/2024

---

Arsenal 1-1 Brighton

Possible red card: Veltman challenge on Rice

This is a bit of two different incidents put together into one. The first is that Declan Rice moves the ball away with his foot after Veltman kicks the ball forward into him. After Rice move the ball away Veltman continues his act of kicking and goes straight into Rice.

Here is Johnson on the potential red card:

The VAR check was for a possible red card for serious foul play, due to the way Veltman kicked through on Rice. This was a quick look from Madley because there wasn't the force or brutality required for a red card, but you could argue he should have been booked because he surely could have avoided kicking the Arsenal midfielder.

I agree with this assessment. I think that this should have been a card for the way that he kicks Rice but it was not something that would have merited a red card but nothing 100% certain I guess.

A red card is a 0.9 goals (0.6 additional for Arsenal, -0.3 for Brighton) given a 1% red card expectation, this is roughly a 0.01 goal decision against Arsenal.

The second yellow is tougher to analyze here, because there isn’t really a mechanism for VAR to change the call given it is a yellow card and not a straight red card. We will still rate and look at it but it doesn’t count on the VAR counting stats.

Here is what Johnson has to say about the call regardless:

Kicking the ball away in itself isn't an automatic cautionable offence, it's the impact -- delaying the taking of a restart -- which determines any sanction. Rice was guilty of "kicking or carrying the ball away, or provoking a confrontation by deliberately touching the ball after the referee has stopped play," and can have no complaints.

I think the matter of fact “can have no complaints” is wrong. I think there area number of reasons he can have complaints even if he did technically delay the restart.

First on the placement of the free kick here is Johnson:

Veltman moved the ball forward (within the accepted distance of an offence for a free kick in this area of the pitch)

I don’t know exactly what the accepted distance is. This is very a much a norm, common sense type of judgement I am sure and not something that is actually written down and published. Johnson says so very matter of fact on this and I think it is at least partially in dispute, it is pretty jarring looking at how he describes this compared to how he twists himself into knots with uncertainty later.

The spot of the foul, where Rice catches and trips Veltman is pretty deep in the Brighton half very close to the corner. In the screenshot below you can sort of make out the scuff marks on the grass where the two players were fighting for the ball and I have drawn an x.

Where the attempted freekick takes place is a good 6-8 yards further forward than this. It is possible that this is not a problem and the referee would have allowed this as the spot to retake, but it is not out of question that you will also see a referee stop a kick from this far from the spot and make it be retaken, especially if they think the player was able to gain an advantage.

I think this is not typically a huge issue but we do have the situation where the attacking player here was the one who moved the ball up the field and into Rice where this could have been an off ramp for common sense to prevail that this was not a fair re-start.

Continuing on.

Another issue with the Rice incident is that the ball might have been moving when Veltman was about to take the free kick, which would have been an illegal restart, but no one can know if the ball would have stopped rolling because Rice's act removed that possibility.

Here is the twisting of himself to add uncertainty about the situation that wasn’t there before. No we can not say for certain that the ball would have been still in motion but common sense would suggest that it is unlikely. At no point when Veltman goes to start his quick take has the ball stopped, and it doesn’t look to be close with or without a touch from Rice.

This is another area where common sense could have prevailed to say that this wasn’t a restart and things could have been calmed down vs giving a yellow card.

There is another situation that isn’t covered by Johnson in that there is by the letter of the law another time where the restart could have technically have already been taken.

As the whistle blows for the foul Veltman is in generally close proximity to where the foul happened. He gets up, the ball is stationary and he kicks the ball forward playing it off of Rice.

I don’t believe that was his intent to play a free kick here but a strict interpretation could say that it was and that everything after this was from a ball already in play. I think this is a little flimsy but if the justification is that the referee had no choice because the letter of the law says he must book him, this can also apply. I think common sense would say no, but I also think common sense would say that Rice shouldn’t get a yellow card for his action.

Overall, I think that this is a harsh decision against Arsenal. This results in a yellow card about 25% of the time from my gut rating. The factors about this not being a valid restart for me should have given the referee ample opportunities to use common sense, to not escalate the situation and have a massive unneeded impact on the match.

A second yellow for a red card is a 0.7 goal decision (-0.3 for Arsenal, 0.4 for Brighton) given a 25% second yellow card expectation, this is roughly a 0.53 goal decision against Arsenal.

Possible penalty: Handball by Dunk

Decision is given as no penalty on the field and is verified by the VAR.

From Johnson:

Dunk had his arm close to his body and made no movement towards the ball.

I agree with this, I don’t want something like this to be a handball and the new directive is to have more benefit towards a defender to have not committed a handball if they are in a natural and expected position.

The hand is a bit away from the body and the ball is potentially going in the corner with this block having an impact on that possibility. This has been given in the past and similar ones will be given this year. I would rate that this was a 10% chance of being called a handball and a penalty, his arm is not overly far out from his body and if this was called the other way I would not like the call.

A penalty is 0.78 xG given a 10% penalty expectation, this is roughly a 0.08 goal decision against Arsenal.

Aston Villa 0-2 Arsenal