VAR Weekend Review: Forest handball controversy, Arsenal offside and Real Madrid penalty drama

The first weekend of September gave VAR almost every kind of problem it can have.

At Nottingham Forest, the biggest argument was not really about the handball law. It was about whether the video officials had enough evidence to overturn a goal in the first place. Sunderland experienced three major reviews in one afternoon. Arsenal had an equaliser removed for offside, while Liverpool saw a penalty disappear because VAR found an earlier offence.

Then Real Madrid's defeat at Real Betis produced a different question altogether: when does encroachment actually require a penalty to be retaken?

Here are the VAR decisions that mattered most from the weekend.

Nottingham Forest 0–0 Tottenham: did VAR have enough evidence to disallow Neco Williams' goal?

This was the weekend's biggest VAR argument.

Neco Williams thought he had given Nottingham Forest the lead against Tottenham when he converted from close range in the second half. Referee Craig Pawson initially awarded the goal.

VAR Peter Bankes then examined whether the ball had touched Williams' arm immediately before he scored. Pawson was sent to the monitor and the goal was overturned for attacking handball.

Once a hand or arm touch by the scorer is established, the law leaves little room for debate. The more interesting question was whether VAR had established that touch clearly enough.

Williams insisted he had headed the ball. Forest manager Oliver Glasner also questioned whether the available replays provided the clear evidence needed to reverse the on-field decision.

After the match, another camera angle emerged which appeared to strengthen the case that the ball had touched Williams' arm. Crucially, that angle was reportedly not available to VAR when the decision was made.

That creates an unusual distinction between the final decision and the process used to reach it.

Later evidence may support disallowing the goal. It does not necessarily prove that VAR had sufficiently clear evidence at the time it intervened.

For a system built around correcting clear errors, that distinction matters.

Read more about how VAR checks, reviews and the intervention threshold work.

Confirmed: Williams' goal was awarded on the field and overturned after VAR identified an attacking handball.

Disputed: whether the footage available to VAR at the time provided sufficiently clear evidence to overturn the original decision.

Brentford 1–1 Sunderland: three VAR decisions in one match

Sunderland experienced almost the full VAR menu at Brentford.

Dan Ballard appeared to put the visitors ahead after only seven minutes, but a lengthy review found Kevin Danso offside.

The important part was not simply Danso's position. VAR judged that he had interfered with goalkeeper Caoimhín Kelleher while in an offside position, so the goal was disallowed despite Danso not scoring himself.

There was more video drama before half-time.

Brentford thought they had scored through Jaidon Anthony during added time, only for VAR to intervene. The goal was ruled out after Roefs was judged to have control of the ball before Anthony challenged him.

Then Sunderland benefited from another major decision late in the game.

Keane Lewis-Potter was penalised for his challenge on Wilson Isidor inside the area. Enzo Le Fée converted the resulting penalty in the 82nd minute to secure a 1–1 draw.

Three significant reviews. Two disallowed goals. One penalty.

It was a reminder that VAR's influence on a match cannot always be reduced to one controversial call.

Confirmed: Sunderland had an early goal disallowed for offside interference, Brentford later had a goal overturned after VAR intervention, and Sunderland were awarded the penalty from which Le Fée equalised.

Arsenal 2–1 Chelsea: why was Riccardo Calafiori's goal disallowed?

Chelsea had barely settled at the Emirates before taking the lead through Morgan Rogers.

Arsenal thought they had responded through Riccardo Calafiori in the 12th minute.

The goal was initially awarded.

VAR then identified Ezri Konsa in an offside position during the build-up, and Calafiori's equaliser was ruled out.

Unlike the Forest incident, this was not primarily a debate about whether the evidence justified intervention. Once the offside position had been identified, there was considerably less room for subjective interpretation.

Arsenal recovered anyway. Kai Havertz equalised before Martin Ødegaard completed the turnaround in a 2–1 victory.

The incident demonstrates the less controversial side of VAR. Some reviews revolve around judgement and intervention thresholds. Others are essentially factual corrections.

Supporters may still dislike the interruption, but the nature of the disagreement is very different.

Confirmed: Calafiori's goal was initially awarded before VAR identified an offside offence in the build-up.

Ipswich 0–2 Liverpool: a penalty review that found something else

Liverpool's trip to Ipswich produced one of the weekend's more unusual review sequences.

Dominik Szoboszlai went down inside the penalty area after a challenge from Leif Davis, and referee Darren England awarded Liverpool a penalty.

VAR began checking the incident.

But the decisive discovery came before the challenge everyone was watching.

Szoboszlai had been offside earlier in the attacking phase.

That meant the possible foul no longer mattered. The penalty was cancelled and play restarted for the offside offence.

It is an important feature of VAR that can easily be overlooked. A penalty review does not necessarily begin and end with the final challenge. Officials can examine the relevant attacking phase and discover an earlier offence that makes everything afterwards irrelevant.

Confirmed: Liverpool were initially awarded a penalty before VAR identified an earlier offside involving Szoboszlai. The penalty was cancelled.

Real Betis 1–0 Real Madrid: should Mbappé's penalty have been retaken?

Real Madrid's defeat at Real Betis ended with two VAR moments in quick succession.

Carlos Espí thought he had produced a spectacular late equaliser with a bicycle kick, but the goal was ruled out for offside.

Then came the bigger controversy.

Deep into stoppage time, Natan brought down Vinícius Júnior inside the area and Madrid were awarded a penalty.

Kylian Mbappé stepped up.

Álvaro Valles saved it.

But the sequence did not end there.

VAR checked whether Marc Bartra had entered the penalty area before Mbappé struck the ball. Bartra subsequently reached the rebound before the French forward.

After the review, referee Alejandro Hernández Hernández did not order the penalty to be retaken.

That is where the debate begins.

Penalty encroachment is more complicated than simply asking whether a player entered the area too early. The sanction can depend on which team infringed, the outcome of the kick and whether the encroaching player subsequently became involved in play.

The result therefore stands as another example of VAR answering one factual question without necessarily ending the argument around the decision.

Confirmed: Espí had a late goal ruled out for offside. Madrid were then awarded a stoppage-time penalty, Valles saved Mbappé's kick and VAR checked possible encroachment before play continued without a retake.

Disputed: whether the circumstances of the encroachment should have resulted in the penalty being taken again.

What was the biggest VAR controversy of the weekend?

Nottingham Forest against Tottenham stands apart from the other incidents.

The debate is not simply whether the ball eventually appears to have touched Neco Williams' arm.

It is whether VAR had enough evidence to say so when it overturned the goal.

That question goes directly to the purpose of the intervention threshold.

VAR was introduced to correct significant refereeing errors that video evidence can establish. When the evidence itself is uncertain, the danger is that video review stops correcting clear mistakes and starts replacing one judgement with another.

Elsewhere, the weekend showed VAR performing more conventional work.

Sunderland's match involved offside interference, goalkeeper control and a penalty. Arsenal lost a goal to an offside in the build-up. Liverpool lost a penalty because the attacking phase was already invalid.

Real Madrid provided something different again. VAR identified the encroachment question but the application of the law remained open to argument afterwards.

That may be the most persistent problem facing video refereeing.

VAR can provide officials with more information.

It cannot guarantee that everyone will agree on what should be done with it.

Browse recent VAR decisions on VarVote or read the VarVote guide to how VAR works.