West Ham v Chelsea

[Mr Dean]

West Ham no. 28 appears to have his left foot on the line. I've always thought that the line is part of the penalty area. I'm not a fan of using VAR to check the taking of a penalty kick but since it is used this way, should this penalty kick have been retaken?

 

[es1]

I think, as no Chelsea player challenged him or was near him when he cleared the ball, he doesn't have an 'impact on the outcome' therefore it's not retaken

 

[RustyRef]

It was an interesting one. There's no doubt he was encroaching, and I thought if he then got involved after the save he would be penalised, but PGMOL seem to say that as he didn't stop a Chelsea player from getting the ball it was OK.

 

[Peter Grove]

The guidance

It was an interesting one. There's no doubt he was encroaching, and I thought if he then got involved after the save he would be penalised, but PGMOL seem to say that as he didn't stop a Chelsea player from getting the ball it was OK.

The guidance on this isn't to penalise the player who encroached if they get involved in any way though, as far as I recall, only if they get involved in either scoring or preventing a goal.

 

[Peter Grove]

This is taken from the original, "full length" VAR protocol:

Encroachment can only be reviewed if:
• an attacker who encroached scores or is directly involved in a goal being scored
• a defender who encroached prevents an attacker playing or being able to play the ball in a situation where a goal might be scored.

Admittedly that isn't in the current wording in the laws but it sure seems to be the way they applied it in this case.

 

[GraemeS]

VAR is only supposed to get involved if the "offence" had a meaningful effect on the game, ie the encroaching player affects the rebound.

Technically the referee could have ordered a retake on the field, but being that picky would have been way out of line with how penalty encroachment has been handled for years, so I don't think it's reasonalbe to expect the on-field official to notice that.