Premier League VAR Decisions: Martinez Red Card Explained

Video Assistant Referee (VAR) decisions have once again become a major talking point in the Premier League following Manchester United’s 2-0 defeat against Chelsea on October 31. The biggest controversy involved Lisandro Martinez, who was sent off after a VAR review for a second yellow-card offence that also resulted in a penalty for Chelsea.

Former Select Group referee Andy Davies has assessed the major refereeing incidents from the 2026-27 Premier League season, explaining how VAR protocol and the Laws of the Game apply to controversial decisions. His analysis covers Martinez’s dismissal, Matheus Cunha’s disallowed goal, Ayden Heaven’s challenge against Bournemouth and several other incidents that have generated debate.

According to Davies, VAR made the correct intervention in the Chelsea-Manchester United match, with the penalty and second yellow card considered the appropriate outcome. However, his assessment also identifies other situations in which officials either made mistakes or correctly allowed the original on-field decision to stand.

Did Lisandro Martinez Deserve a Red Card Against Chelsea?

Chelsea 2-0 Manchester United (October 31)

Referee: Peter Bankes | VAR: James Bell | Time: 61st minute

The most significant VAR incident from Chelsea’s victory over Manchester United involved Lisandro Martinez and Wesley Fofana. Chelsea were awarded a penalty following an on-field review, while Martinez was sent off after receiving a second yellow card.

During an aerial challenge, the Manchester United defender appeared to lead with his arm and make contact with Fofana’s head. Referee Peter Bankes did not initially award a penalty, but VAR James Bell examined the incident and recommended a review at the pitchside monitor.

Davies explained that VAR was uncomfortable with the challenge but could only intervene if the referee had made a clear and obvious error. After examining several replay angles, the VAR concluded that the incident met the threshold for intervention.

The key factors were the timing and nature of Martinez’s challenge. According to the assessment, the Argentine defender was late, made no attempt to play the ball and was facing his opponent rather than challenging for possession. Most importantly, his arm made contact through what was considered a reckless action.

After watching the replays, Bankes agreed with the VAR recommendation, awarded Chelsea a penalty and showed Martinez a second yellow card. The dismissal left Manchester United with ten players during a crucial period of the match.

Verdict: Davies considered the VAR intervention correct. He believed the penalty and second yellow card were the right outcomes because Martinez’s reckless aerial challenge created a high risk of contact with his opponent.

Davies also suggested that Bankes would be disappointed not to have awarded the penalty during the match itself. In his view, the contact appeared sufficiently clear on first sight. Nevertheless, he praised VAR for identifying an error that needed correcting, particularly during a season in which officials have been encouraged to limit unnecessary interventions.

Why Was Matheus Cunha’s Goal Disallowed?

Chelsea 2-0 Manchester United (October 31)

Time: 34th minute | Incident: Matheus Cunha’s disallowed goal for offside

Manchester United appeared to take the lead through Matheus Cunha during the first half at Stamford Bridge. Harry Maguire headed a deep corner back across the goalmouth, allowing Cunha to turn the ball into the net.

However, a VAR check using the semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) showed that Cunha was in an offside position when Maguire played the ball. His left leg had moved beyond the last defender, resulting in the goal being disallowed.

The decision did not require an on-field review because offside positioning is a factual matter that can be determined through the technology.

Verdict: Davies agreed with the decision to disallow the goal. Although the incident was difficult to judge in real time, the semi-automated system provided the information needed to establish that Cunha was offside.

Why Did Ayden Heaven Avoid a Red Card Against Bournemouth?

Manchester United 0-3 Bournemouth (October 25)

Referee: Jarred Gillett | VAR: Paul Howard | Time: 37th minute

Manchester United defender Ayden Heaven escaped a red card following a dangerous-looking challenge on Bournemouth forward Evanilson. Heaven went into the tackle with both feet off the ground, appearing to make contact over the top of the ball.

Referee Jarred Gillett showed the defender a yellow card, but Bournemouth players were unhappy with the decision and believed the challenge deserved a dismissal.

VAR Paul Howard reviewed the incident and supported the referee’s original decision. According to Davies, the referee’s description of the challenge as reckless and showing disregard for an opponent’s safety accurately reflected what was visible in the replays.

For VAR to recommend an on-field review, there would need to be a clear error or a complete misinterpretation of the incident. Davies explained that the challenge did not meet the threshold for a red card for Serious Foul Play.

Verdict: The yellow card and VAR’s decision not to intervene were considered correct. Although Heaven’s challenge was reckless, the lack of contact or any real danger to Evanilson meant it did not reach the required level for a red card.

Davies noted that the distinction between a yellow and red card often depends on the level of contact and danger created by a challenge. In this situation, Heaven’s action showed disregard for his opponent’s safety but did not go further than the yellow-card threshold.

Should Brentford’s Yehor Yarmoliuk Have Been Sent Off?

Brentford 1-2 Liverpool (October 17)

Referee: John Brooks | VAR: Darren England | Time: 45+3 minutes

Brentford defender Yehor Yarmoliuk was sent off for violent conduct following a confrontation with Liverpool’s Jérémy Jacquet shortly before half-time.

With Liverpool preparing to take a corner, the two players became involved in an altercation that ended with Jacquet on the ground. After reviewing the incident, referee John Brooks agreed with VAR Darren England’s recommendation and dismissed Yarmoliuk for headbutting his opponent.

The review took longer than usual because the initial replay angles did not provide conclusive evidence of the violent action. England eventually identified a close camera angle inside the penalty area that clearly showed the incident.

Verdict: Davies considered the red card a correct outcome. Deliberately heading an opponent and making contact is likely to be treated as violent conduct under the Laws of the Game.

However, he criticised the length of the review, which took approximately four minutes before the referee was sent to the pitchside monitor. He argued that the process should have been completed more quickly.

There was also discussion about why Liverpool were not awarded a penalty following the incident. Davies explained that the ball was not in play when the confrontation occurred, meaning the original corner-kick restart was correct.

Was Ryan Gravenberch Wrongly Sent Off Against Manchester City?

Liverpool 0-3 Manchester City (October 11)

Referee: Chris Kavanagh | VAR: Paul Howard | Time: 62nd minute

Liverpool midfielder Ryan Gravenberch received a second yellow card after fouling Manchester City’s Jérémy Doku, leaving his team with ten players during the match.

Gravenberch had already been booked earlier in the game. His challenge on Doku was considered a foul that stopped a promising attacking opportunity, prompting referee Chris Kavanagh to issue another yellow card.

Second yellow cards can be reviewed by VAR in the Premier League under rules introduced for the 2026-27 season. However, intervention is limited to situations in which the second caution is factually incorrect.

Davies explained that the incident did not meet that requirement. Although some supporters may consider the decision harsh, Gravenberch’s late and clumsy challenge from behind created a significant risk of a second booking.

Verdict: Davies considered the second yellow card correct. He did, however, believe Gravenberch could feel aggrieved about his first booking, suggesting that the contact with Elliot Anderson may have been misjudged by the referee.

Once a player is already on a yellow card, a further foul carries the risk of dismissal. Davies noted that Liverpool may feel unfortunate about the overall outcome, but the second caution was justified under the circumstances.

Should Manchester United Have Received a Penalty Against Fulham?

Fulham 1-1 Manchester United (September 20)

Referee: Peter Bankes | VAR: Nick Hopton | Time: 86th minute

Manchester United appealed for a late penalty after Lisandro Martinez struck the ball towards Fulham defender Calvin Bassey from close range and it hit the defender’s arm.

Referee Peter Bankes rejected the appeals, and VAR Nick Hopton agreed with the decision. The officials considered the short distance between the players, the position of Bassey’s arm and the natural movement of his body.

Davies explained that the handball law allows play to continue when a player is struck from close range and their arm movement is a natural reflex, provided the action does not make the body unnaturally bigger.

The position of the defender’s arms is also important. If they remain within the body’s natural outline and the ball would otherwise have struck the body or face, the incident may not constitute a handball offence.

Verdict: Davies agreed with the decision not to award Manchester United a penalty. He considered Bassey’s reaction consistent with the interpretation of the handball law and praised the officials for correctly assessing the incident.

Was Declan Rice Lucky to Avoid a Red Card Against Brighton?

Brighton & Hove Albion 3-0 Arsenal (September 19)

Referee: Darren England | VAR: Tim Wood | Time: 90+7 minutes

Arsenal midfielder Declan Rice received a late yellow card after appearing to kick out at Brighton’s Malick Yalcouyé during an off-the-ball incident.

The fourth official noticed the incident in real time, and the on-field referee issued a yellow card. VAR checked the decision but did not recommend an intervention.

Davies explained that VAR can only become involved in this type of situation if officials believe the referee has missed violent conduct or an act of brutality. The replay did not provide sufficient evidence to meet either threshold.

Verdict: Davies believed the yellow card was a sensible outcome. Although Rice’s reaction was frustrated and potentially risky, he viewed the action as a petulant attempt to trip Yalcouyé rather than a violent act or an act of brutality.

He added that Rice was fortunate the incident was interpreted as a yellow-card offence on the pitch. Had the original decision been a red card, the Arsenal midfielder would have faced a three-match suspension following the international break.

Why Was Phil Foden Sent Off in the Manchester Derby?

Manchester United 0-1 Manchester City (September 13)

Referee: Michael Oliver | VAR: Matt Donohue | Time: 23rd minute

Manchester City’s Phil Foden was dismissed after appearing to kick out at Manchester United captain Bruno Fernandes during an altercation between the players.

The incident followed an untidy coming together, but Foden’s subsequent action was considered violent conduct. Referee Michael Oliver issued a red card, and VAR Matt Donohue checked the decision before confirming it.

Davies described the review as straightforward because the available footage clearly showed Foden kicking out at Fernandes. The replay evidence also matched the referee’s description of what had happened.

Verdict: Davies believed Foden had little reason to complain about the dismissal. He explained that kicking out at an opponent in this manner is likely to result in a red card for violent conduct, regardless of the precise level of contact.

He also praised Oliver’s positioning, which allowed the referee to see the incident clearly and make a quick decision without needing a lengthy review.

Why Was Enzo Fernández Not Ruled Offside in Manchester City’s Goal?

Manchester United 0-1 Manchester City (September 13)

Time: 60th minute | Incident: Erling Haaland’s goal following an offside review

Manchester City’s winning goal against United generated controversy after a lengthy VAR review. Erling Haaland appeared to be in an offside position during the attacking move, but the goal was eventually awarded.

Semi-automated offside technology showed that Haaland was onside when his teammate delivered the ball. However, a separate question concerned Enzo Fernández, who was in an offside position and positioned in front of Manchester United defender Lisandro Martinez.

The VAR had to determine whether Fernández interfered with play by attempting to play the ball or by affecting Martinez’s ability to defend. The officials concluded that he did not meet the criteria for an offside offence.

Verdict: Davies considered the decision to award the goal incorrect. While he agreed that the technology correctly established Haaland was onside, he believed the subjective part of the review had been mishandled.

According to his assessment, Fernández’s position and actions affected Martinez’s ability to defend the ball. The relevant offside provisions cover situations in which a player clearly attempts to play a nearby ball and impacts an opponent, or makes an obvious action that affects an opponent’s ability to play it.

Davies argued that the referee should have been recommended to review the incident at the pitchside monitor. Because the question involved a subjective interpretation of interference, the referee should have made the final assessment after viewing the footage.

He described the outcome as a significant VAR error that could have a major impact on the match and generate considerable debate.

Should Sunderland Have Been Awarded a Penalty Against Arsenal?

Sunderland 0-2 Arsenal (September 12)

Referee: John Brooks | VAR: Stuart Attwell | Time: 54th minute

Sunderland were awarded a penalty after Arsenal defender Ezri Konsa was judged to have fouled Dan Ballard during a corner. With the match still goalless, referee John Brooks pointed to the spot, and VAR Stuart Attwell confirmed the decision.

Brooks’ description of the incident suggested that Konsa had been holding Ballard near the post while facing away from the ball. VAR considered the referee’s explanation consistent with his decision and did not recommend a review.

However, Davies disagreed with the penalty award after examining the replay footage. He argued that the contact between the players was initially normal and that Ballard used his left arm to pull Konsa’s shirt, causing the Arsenal defender to lose balance and fall onto him.

Verdict: Davies believed the penalty should not have been awarded. In his assessment, Ballard was responsible for the punishable contact, meaning the correct restart should have been a defensive free-kick for Arsenal.

He criticised VAR for failing to intervene, arguing that the replay evidence did not match the referee’s description of the incident. He considered this a clear on-field error that should have resulted in a pitchside review.

Why Was Nottingham Forest’s Neco Williams Denied a Goal Against Tottenham?

Nottingham Forest 0-0 Tottenham (September 5)

Referee: Craig Pawson | VAR: Peter Bankes | Time: 67th minute

Nottingham Forest defender Neco Williams thought he had scored the opening goal against Tottenham after bundling the ball over the line. However, VAR overturned the goal after finding that the ball had touched his arm immediately before entering the net.

The incident required several replay angles and different speeds to establish whether the contact had occurred. The decisive footage came from a camera positioned inside Tottenham’s goal, which showed the ball striking Williams’ arm and changing direction.

Under the handball law, a goal must be disallowed if the goalscorer accidentally handles the ball immediately before scoring. This applies even when the contact is unintentional.

Verdict: Davies agreed with the decision to disallow the goal. Although the review was not straightforward, the decisive camera angle provided sufficient evidence to establish that Williams had handled the ball before scoring.

He also distinguished the incident from the earlier Harry Maguire handball situation against Ipswich, explaining that the laws treat the two scenarios differently depending on who ultimately scores.

How Did New VAR Standards Affect Arsenal’s Penalty Appeal Against Aston Villa?

Aston Villa 0-1 Arsenal (August 31)

Referee: Jarred Gillett | VAR: James Bell | Time: 90+9 minutes

Arsenal appealed for a late penalty after Bruno Guimarães was challenged from behind by Aston Villa’s Ian Maatsen inside the penalty area. Referee Jarred Gillett waved away the appeals, and VAR James Bell decided not to recommend an on-field review.

The VAR applied the Premier League’s higher threshold for intervention, concluding that the referee’s decision not to award a penalty was not a clear and obvious error.

Davies disagreed with that assessment. He believed Maatsen’s challenge, which involved a scissor-like action from behind without an attempt to play the ball, clearly made contact with Guimarães rather than the ball.

Verdict: Davies considered it a clear penalty that should have been awarded. He was surprised that both the referee and VAR allowed play to continue without a review.

He acknowledged that the higher intervention threshold is intended to reduce unnecessary stoppages and repeated reviews. However, he warned that the principle should not prevent clear penalty-area fouls from being corrected.

Why Did Harry Maguire’s Handball Not Cancel Manchester United’s Goal Against Ipswich?

Manchester United 5-2 Ipswich Town (August 30)

Referee: Craig Pawson | VAR: Jarred Gillett | Time: 56th minute

Manchester United’s second goal against Ipswich Town was allowed to stand despite the ball appearing to strike Harry Maguire’s arm during the build-up.

The ball came out of the Ipswich penalty area and hit Maguire before he brought it under control and shot towards goal. His effort then took a significant deflection off Ipswich defender Jacob Greaves and entered the net.

VAR examined two important questions: whether Maguire’s shot was on target before the deflection and whether his handball was accidental or punishable.

The officials concluded that Greaves was the goalscorer because his deflection changed the ball’s direction. They also considered Maguire’s contact with the ball accidental.

Verdict: Davies described the decision as debatable but not incorrect under the Laws of the Game. Because Maguire was not the immediate goalscorer and the handball was judged accidental, the goal could stand.

Had Maguire scored directly from the incident, the accidental handball would have resulted in the goal being disallowed. Davies acknowledged that Ipswich could understandably feel unfortunate, but the VAR’s interpretation was within the law.

Should Liverpool Have Been Awarded a Late Penalty Against Newcastle?

Newcastle United 2-2 Liverpool (August 23)

Referee: Stuart Attwell | VAR: James Bell | Time: 90+6 minutes

Liverpool received a late penalty after Newcastle defender Lewis Hall brought down Victor Muñoz inside the penalty area. Referee Stuart Attwell immediately pointed to the spot, and VAR confirmed the decision.

The referee explained that Hall had not played the ball and had made clear contact with the Liverpool attacker. VAR James Bell supported that assessment, describing the contact as knee against thigh.

Verdict: Davies considered the penalty correct. He explained that when an attacker enters the penalty area at speed with the ball under control, a defender must successfully challenge for the ball to avoid committing a foul.

Hall’s challenge was clumsy and made contact with Muñoz without winning possession. Davies therefore believed the penalty was justified, even if Newcastle supporters felt their team had been unfortunate to concede so late.

What These Premier League VAR Decisions Tell Us About the 2026-27 Season

The incidents reviewed by Davies demonstrate how VAR decisions depend on both the Laws of the Game and the threshold for intervention. Some situations involve factual questions, such as offside positioning or whether the ball touched a goalscorer’s arm immediately before a goal. Others require subjective judgments about reckless challenges, violent conduct, handball and interference with an opponent.

The Martinez incident against Chelsea highlights how VAR can correct a missed penalty decision and help ensure that a second yellow card is issued when the evidence supports it. Meanwhile, the decisions involving Arsenal against Sunderland and Aston Villa show that the higher intervention threshold can also create disagreement when an expert believes a clear foul has been overlooked.

Another important point is that VAR cannot simply replace the referee’s judgment in every controversial situation. Intervention is generally reserved for clear errors, while subjective decisions often require the referee to review the footage personally before reaching a final conclusion.

As the 2026-27 Premier League season continues, decisions involving red cards, penalties and offside incidents will remain under close examination. For Manchester United, the dismissal of Martinez against Chelsea has become another major talking point following their defeat at Stamford Bridge. According to Davies, however, the penalty and second yellow card were justified by the nature of the defender’s challenge.