Caicedo red card vs Arsenal, Mateta’s penalty retake

Cliff Notes – Caicedo red card vs Arsenal, Mateta’s penalty retake

• The VAR intervened positively in the Caicedo incident, leading to a red card for serious foul play after an initial yellow was issued by referee Anthony Taylor.
• Mateta’s penalty was disallowed due to an accidental double touch, a decision confirmed by VAR without the need for an on-field review.

VAR Review: Caicedo red card vs. Arsenal, Mateta’s penalty retake

The video assistant referee causes controversy every week in the Premier League, but how are decisions made and are they correct?

This season, we take a look at the major incidents to examine and explain the process both in terms of the VAR protocol and the laws of the game.

All screenshots photo credit: NBC

Andy Davies (@andydaviesref) is a former Select Group referee, with over 12 seasons on the elite list, working across the Premier League and Championship. With extensive experience at the elite level, he has operated within the VAR space in the Premier League and offers a unique insight into the processes, rationale and protocols that are delivered on a Premier League matchday.

Referee: Anthony Taylor
VAR: John Brooks
Incident 1: Possible serious foul-play challenge, Moisés Caicedo tackle on Mikel Merino.
Time: 34 minutes

What happened: Caicedo was late with a challenge on Merino. Taylor, who initially played advantage as Arsenal had possession of the ball in a positive area of the pitch and with an opportunity to attack, stopped the game and cautioned Caicedo, for what he originally felt was a late reckless challenge.

STRAIGHT RED CARD SHOWN TO MOISES CAICEDO, AND CHELSEA ARE DOWN TO TEN MEN. 🟥 pic.twitter.com/b6MNOGkE0K

— NBC Sports Soccer (@NBCSportsSoccer) November 30, 2025

VAR decision: Brooks, having viewed the footage, felt that Caicedo’s challenge on Merino met the threshold of serious foul play and endangered the safety of his opponent and a red card should have been issued. Brooks recommended an on-field review (OFR) to Taylor.

VAR review: After only one or two views, Brooks would have been sure in his mind that an intervention was required. However, as VAR you are process driven, and to recommend an OFR, any rationale must be evidence based, showing that a clear on-field error has occurred. Verbalizing the challenge, Brooks cited that it was late, made at speed with a high level of force and with a straight leg, making contact above the ankle of Merino — it was a poor tackle.

Once Taylor had delivered his on-field decision of a yellow card, delayed while both players received treatment, Brooks communicated his recommendation.

It felt like the entire stadium knew what was coming next, and having viewed the footage at full speed and from two definitive angles, Taylor agreed. He rescinded the yellow card he’d originally awarded to Caicedo and issued the red card.

Verdict: A positive intervention by VAR and a correct outcome once reviewed by Taylor. The challenge was poor, endangered the safety of his opponent, and Caicedo was correctly sent off.

The original on-field decision by Taylor to only caution was an understandable one, these types of challenges can be so difficult to process as red card offenses in real time. Taylor would have been very aware that the challenge was late and would have had a feel of the speed that the challenge was committed, however key elements that make this a serious foul-pay challenge — level of force, point of contact and the straight leg action — would not have been obvious given the dynamics of both players and a caution for a reckless challenge would have felt credible.

Incident 2: Possible serious foul-play challenge, Piero Hincapié contest with Trevoh Chalobah.
Time: 40 minutes

What happened: Hincapié and Chalobah challenged for a high ball and, with both focused on the flight of the ball, Hincapié contacted Chalobah’s face, using his left arm and leaving the Chelsea defender on the floor, rolling around in agony. Taylor, who had a good view of the incident, awarded Chelsea a free kick and cautioned Hincapié for reckless use of the arm.

VAR decision: The VAR reviewed the challenge by Hincapié and was comfortable with Taylor’s on-field interpretation of the incident. He agreed that it was only a reckless action by Hincapié and completed the check quickly.

VAR review: These types of challenges can be distorted when reviewed in slow motion, so it was important that Brooks viewed at full speed before analysing the Arsenal players action and its level contact in greater detail.

Taylor’s on-field communication would have been positive and delivered with clarity in describing what he had seen. The referee would have verbalised that Hincapié challenged with a leading arm, minimal force, no swinging action and an open fist. The clear description by Taylor, matched by the pictures made this a relatively easy check and clear for Brooks.

Trevoh Chalobah appeared to have gotten a bruise after Piero Hincapié made contact with his face using his elbow. Hincapié was only given a yellow card for the play 👀

This came just minutes after Caicedo’s red card 😅 pic.twitter.com/VEBBsppfxc

— ESPN FC (@ESPNFC) November 30, 2025

Verdict: Correct call by the referee on-field, and the caution for reckless play was delivered, in his usual calm and authoritative manner. Brooks in VAR would not have needed to consider this check for too long as the evidence clearly backed the rationale for a caution as opposed to anything more.

As a referee or a VAR, when you are looking to judge situations with a use of the arm against a possible red card, you are looking for some key characteristics in the action that are red flags and form part of the considerations for a sanction. A deliberate swinging of the arm, a clenched fist, a deliberate stiff arm and players who deviate their eyes away from the ball flight towards their opponent are — coupled with the level of force and/or brutality — clues to an act of serious foul play and form part of the decision making and VAR review process.

This challenge, however, didn’t meet any of the criteria, and a sound outcome was reached by Taylor and Brooks.

Referee: Rob Jones
VAR: Matt Donohue
Incident: Penalty retake, Jean-Philippe Mateta accidentally plays the ball twice while taking penalty kick.
Time: 34 minutes

What happened: Crystal Palace were awarded a penalty when Leny Yoro fouled Mateta in the United penalty area. Mateta picked himself up and took the penalty himself, scoring to take the lead. However, VAR Donohue correctly picked up on review that Mateta accidentally played the ball twice while taking the kick; this is not allowed in law.

Jean-Philippe Mateta’s first penalty try was ruled a double touch, but he has no problem with the second as Crystal Palace lead Man United. 🦅 pic.twitter.com/cGyGtPGnIa

— NBC Sports Soccer (@NBCSportsSoccer) November 30, 2025

Verdict: Correct intervention by VAR; this was a factual situation and therefore no on-field review was required.

This law was amended prior to this season as it was felt that an accidental double touch should not be punished when a kick has been successful. These types of situations tend to happen when the kicker, in his run-up, slips and unintentionally plays the ball twice.

A defensive indirect free kick, however, will still be awarded if a player intentionally plays the ball twice before it has been played by another player — i.e. the ball rebounds off the goalpost and the kicker plays the ball for a second time.

Referee: Chris Kavanagh
VAR: James Bell
Incident: Goal disallowed. Wolves had an early goal from Jørgen Strand Larsen disallowed for offside.
Time: 16 minutes

What happened: An opening goal for Wolves was disallowed for offside by the on-field refereeing team. Strand Larsen finished a fine cross from the right-hand side, only for the assistant referee to raise his flag for offside. Referee Kavanagh and assistant referee Dan Cook determined that Wolves attacker Jhon Arias was impacting on Aston Villa’s keeper Emiliano Martínez’s ability to save the ball following Strand Larsen’s shot.

VAR decision: VAR checked and confirmed the on-field decision that Arias was in an offside position and impacting the goalkeeper’s ability to save the ball as Strand Larsen scored his goal.

VAR review: Given the circumstances in this situation, the VAR’s starting point for this review is the on-field decision and the real-time communication between the referee and his assistant.

As we have seen and learned in recent weeks, only if there is a clear and obvious error in the interpretation in this type of situation can a VAR intervene, once an on-field decision has been reached.

Comms from on-field were clear and positive. Initially assistant referee Cook confirmed that Arias was in an offside position, adding the striker is very close to Martínez, ducking out the way of Strand Larsen’s shot, potentially impacting the keeper. Kavanagh too had a very good position, adding to the conversation and confirming the information fed into him by his assistant.

The footage reviewed by Bell matched the real-time description by the on-field team, and he checked and cleared the decision relatively quickly.

Verdict: Correct outcome in this situation, and probably the most straight-forward of similar events we’ve seen in recent weeks across the Premier League.

Arias is clearly in an offside position and absolutely impacts Martínez’s ability to save the ball. His ducking action, similar to Andrew Robertson’s in the Manchester City vs. Liverpool match, allows the ball to enter the goal, however, his proximity to the keeper is far less and movement more impactful on his opponent’s ability to play (save) the ball.

We have had a run on these types of situations, each challenging the individual refereeing teams with variants in the slightest detail. It will be interesting to learn if the PGMO are looking to review and collaborate with clubs in the Premier League in these subjective situations, as this, in my opinion, would allow for greater understanding from all parties.