A key incident in Arsenal’s match against Everton has prompted debate over the use of VAR and the consistency of penalty decisions in the Premier League. The flashpoint came when Everton defender Michael Keane made contact with Arsenal’s Kai Havertz inside the penalty area, appearing to step on the forward’s Achilles. Despite visible contact and appeals from Arsenal players, neither the on-field referee nor the VAR intervened to award a spot kick.
The central question is whether the contact from Keane on Havertz met the threshold for a clear and obvious error that would justify VAR intervention. In similar situations this season, penalties have often been given when a defender steps on an attacker’s foot or Achilles, even when the defender is attempting to play the ball. The laws of the game state that a direct free kick, and therefore a penalty in the area, should be awarded when a player trips or attempts to trip an opponent, or otherwise commits a careless or reckless challenge. Stepping on an opponent’s heel or Achilles can fall into this category when it impedes or endangers the player.
In real time, the referee may have judged the contact as incidental or minimal, perhaps seeing it as part of a normal coming-together. VAR’s role, however, is to correct clear and obvious mistakes on key incidents such as goals, penalties, straight red cards, and cases of mistaken identity. For VAR officials, the decision matrix typically involves three questions: Was there contact? Did that contact have a clear impact on the attacker? And was the on-field decision so clearly wrong that it must be overturned? If the VAR deems the original call to be within a reasonable range of interpretation, they will not intervene.
Replays suggest that Keane’s foot landed on the back of Havertz’s leg in a way that could reasonably be considered a foul. In many recent matches, similar incidents have resulted in penalties once the VAR alerted the referee to take a second look on the pitchside monitor. The lack of a review in this case therefore appears inconsistent with how other, comparable incidents have been handled.
One explanation could be that the VAR believed Havertz initiated some of the contact by his running line, or that the degree of impact was not sufficient to be judged a clear foul. Another possibility is that the initial on-field view and angle led the officials to underestimate the seriousness of the step, and the VAR did not regard this as a clear enough mistake to intervene. Without access to the officials’ internal audio, the precise reasoning remains unknown.
What is clear is that the incident highlights ongoing concerns about transparency and consistency in VAR usage. Fans, players, and coaches often struggle to understand why some apparent fouls in the box are upgraded to penalties after review while others are not even checked on the monitor. When similar forms of contact produce different outcomes from match to match, it fuels frustration and leads to further scrutiny of VAR.
A separate refereeing issue arose in relation to Paul Tierney and a Chelsea team huddle in another recent match. While details of the exact exchange are not fully available, the situation underlined the communication challenges referees face in managing pre- and post-match interactions, as well as moments surrounding set pieces or kickoffs when players gather for instructions. Referees are tasked with maintaining control, enforcing the laws, and ensuring the timely restart of play, all while dealing with the optics of how their instructions and decisions are perceived by players and supporters.
Together, these moments from the weekend’s fixtures reinforce the need for clearer standards and communication around VAR interventions and on-field management. For Arsenal, the contention will linger that Keane’s contact on Havertz should have been penalized. For the league and its referees, the broader issue is how to apply the technology and the laws in a way that feels consistent, predictable, and understandable across all matches.
