Tottenham vs Liverpool 2023: Anatomy of a VAR Breakdown

Tottenham vs Liverpool in September 2023 produced the VAR error that changed how English reviews are run: a goal was scored, disallowed for offside, and then confirmed as an error minutes later. The lines drawn by the video team showed the forward onside, and the decision was not corrected because the message arrived too late. The mistake was a sentence, not a camera angle.

What made the incident significant was its cause. The technology worked, the cameras worked, the offside line was accurate, and the video team identified the error immediately. The failure was a sentence: the decision on the field was described in a way that left the video assistant referee believing the onside call had already been made.

Tottenham vs Liverpool VAR error: the sequence of a failure

Reconstructing the incident, the on-field officials gave the goal and then signalled offside. In the video room, the check concluded that the player was onside and that the goal should stand. The instruction sent back to the pitch was understood as confirmation of the original decision rather than a correction of it, so the disallowed goal was confirmed instead of being reinstated.

• The check: the video team examined the offside and found the attacker onside.
• The advice: the referee was told the check was complete, in wording that implied the decision was fine.
• The assumption: the video team assumed the on-field decision had been a goal, not a disallowed goal.
• The window: once the free kick was taken, the protocol closed and the error could not be corrected.
• The aftermath: the league released the audio and changed how reviews are concluded.

Why the protocol could not rescue it

Football's review system has a hard stop: a decision cannot be changed after play restarts. The reason is practical, because a match cannot be rewound indefinitely, and the trade-off is that a mistake with a short window can become permanent. In this case the window closed during the free kick that followed the celebration.

What the incident changed

The immediate consequence was a change in language. Video teams were instructed to state the on-field decision before advising on it, so that both sides of the conversation are describing the same thing. Wording that could be read in two ways was replaced with a fixed script, and the requirement to confirm the decision explicitly was added to the procedure.

The second consequence was transparency. The league released the full audio of the review, which allowed supporters to hear exactly where the breakdown occurred. Public release of audio has since become more common, and it has done more to explain the system than any commentary or explanation produced afterwards.

What supporters took from it

The incident hardened two positions. One group concluded that video review cannot be trusted, while another argued that the review had worked and only the conversation had failed. Both readings contain something true, because the system does produce correct analysis far more often than it produces correct outcomes in marginal cases.

The more useful lesson is procedural. When a process depends on several people describing a fast-moving event, the vocabulary of that description becomes part of the system. A single ambiguous phrase can neutralise accurate measurement, and no amount of camera quality compensates for it.

The wider pattern of Premier League VAR mistakes

Similar breakdowns have occurred elsewhere: a review completed before the decision was known, a check missed because the team had already moved on, an offside line never drawn. In every case the technology was functional and the process was not. That is why the training of video officials now focuses heavily on communication drills as well as law interpretation.

The framework they work inside is described in the VAR protocol step by step and inside the VAR room. For the offside mechanics involved, see the offside rule explained.

Why audio release became normal

For years the audio channel between referee and video assistant referee was treated as internal working material, released only in exceptional circumstances. That position became untenable once supporters could see that a correct analysis had failed to reach the pitch, because the explanation for the outcome lived entirely in the conversation.

Releasing the audio of that review changed the argument. Instead of a debate about whether the decision was right, the public heard exactly which sentence went wrong and why the correction never arrived. Several competitions have since adopted regular audio release, and some now publish selected clips each matchweek.

The effect on perception has been larger than any rule amendment. A system that explains itself is far easier to accept than one that simply reports an outcome, even when the outcome is the same.

A goal was scored, correctly judged, correctly measured and correctly identified as legal. It still did not count. That is the uncomfortable lesson of the night: a review system is only as good as the conversation that carries its conclusion.