Should Wilfried Zaha have been awarded a penalty for Crystal Palace against Manchester United? And was Harry Kane fortunate to avoid a red card? Dermot Gallagher is back to have his say...
- Premier League table | Fixtures | Live on Sky
- £18 Sky Sports Premier League and Football channel offer
Dermot joined Rob Wotton on Sky Sports News for his latest review of the big decisions, with controversy reigning at Selhurst Park and at Turf Moor in midweek.
Read on for Dermot's verdict from the latest games...
Crystal Palace 0-2 Man Utd
INCIDENT: Is this a stonewall, nailed-on penalty? Those are the words of Steve Parish, the Crystal Palace chairman, as Wilfried Zaha runs at Victor Lindelof inside the United box and appears to have his legs clipped by the Swedish defender. But referee Graham Scott waves away the Palace protests.
VERDICT: Correct decision. Steve Parish may have said it was a stonewall penalty but Ole Gunnar Solskjaer said the opposite, so that's why you have a referee!
At that point, Graham thinks that Lindelof plays the ball between his legs and then it becomes a tangle. When it goes to VAR, it's not a clear and obvious error, so the result is that they stick with the on-field decision.
If you look back at it, I think Lindelof just about gets the ball. When Zaha goes to step over it, Lindelof then takes the opportunity to kick it... Zaha brings his leg back down because that's his natural movement and that's when the collision occurs. But Lindelof at that point plays the ball.
The referee deems that Lindelof has played the ball and the VAR has gone with the on-field decision but it's not clear and obvious.The referee's got the best view and I don't think VAR would ever overrule that decision.
INCIDENT: Palace thought they had equalised in the secondhalf when Jordan Ayew slid in at the far post to meet Zaha's cross. The goal was awarded on the pitch, but replays showed that the striker was just in an offside position.
VERDICT: Correct decision. To the naked eye, this would've been given last season but VAR is yes or no. When you draw the lines across, if his boots were two sizes smaller, he'd have been onside. But, unfortunately, that's how VAR works on offside.
Man City 2-1 Bournemouth
INCIDENT: There's a penalty overturned at the Etihad as referee Lee Mason initially awards City a penalty for a challenge on Gabriel Jesus by Steve Cook. But upon VAR review, the decision was reversed. Replays showed that Jesus had actually trodden on Cook.
VERDICT: Correct decision. There's been two such incidents like this in the space of a few days as we saw on Sunday Aston Villa having a decision reversed when Jack Grealish went down inside the box. The defender's foot is on the ground, and the forward steps on his foot as his momentum takes him forward. The referee thought he tripped him but VAR can see he hasn't so quite rightly overturns the penalty.
INCIDENT: Bournemouth think they've found a route back into the game when Josh King is on hand to divert Junior Stanislas' cross into the net from close range but the goal is ruled out for offside. But it is mightily tight.
VERDICT: Correct decision. Without sounding like a broken record, offside is offside and that's the rule - no matter how close it is or how long they took to come to the right call. It's calibrated to be yes or no.
Nobody could believe at the start of the season how tight these decisions would be and it just shows the dilemma assistant referees would have in the past. It's so tight, but when you draw the lines across, he is marginally offside.
INCIDENT: Gabriel Jesus thinks he's won his side another penalty when, from Bernardo Silva's cross, the ball bounces back his way and he goes down under a challenge from Jefferson Lerma. Lee Mason says no penalty.
VERDICT: Incorrect decision. I think this is a penalty. I think if you watch it back, Lerma doesn't get anywhere near the ball and I think he takes Jesus down. He was quite a distance from the ball and certainly didn't get it. When I watched the game live I thought it was a penalty, but for whatever reason the VAR has gone with the on-field decision.
I'm not privy to the conversation that was had between the VAR and the on-field referee but they clearly decided that it wasn't a clear and obvious error.
Burnley 1-1 Wolves
INCIDENT: Burnley are awarded a 96th-minute penalty against Wolves by referee Mike Dean as Matt Doherty is adjudged to have handled inside the box in an aerial duel with Chris Wood.
The Burnley striker attempts an overhead-kick but that is not deemed to be dangerous play as the ball comes down and strikes Doherty's arm. When are you protecting your head from being kicked and when is it handball?
VERDICT: Incorrect decision. This isn't an easy one to explain as there's a few things to debate: does Wood have the right to play the ball like that? I think, initially, yes. Does Doherty have the right to challenge for the ball? Certainly. Does he lead with his arm? Yes. Does he lead with his arm to protect his face? Possibly.
The referee thinks it's handball because of the way Doherty leads. He feeds that back to VAR who agrees with him.
For me, the safest option would have been to give a free-kick to Wolves for a dangerous kick because I think Doherty can't head the ball - but many people disagree. This highlights the difficulty and the dilemma of being a referee.
Arsenal 2-1 Liverpool
INCIDENT: Trent Alexander-Arnold overruns the ball down the right flank as Bukayo Saka nips in front of him and is caught high up his left leg by the Liverpool full-back. Alexander-Arnold is shown a yellow card by referee Paul Tierney but should that have been a red?
VERDICT: Correct decision. I think he's fortunate as you can see he tries to pull out at the end. There's minimal contact and it's not one where he's gone all the way through.
The point of contact would've been directly on the leg, as Eddie Nketiah's was in the previous game against Leicester, as Mikel Arteta suggested. That's why it's got to be a yellow card and not a red card. It's not quite the same tackle as this is reckless rather than seriously endangering the opponent.
Newcastle 1-3 Tottenham
INCIDENT: Tottenham striker Harry Kane goes up for an aerial challenge with Fabian Schar but connects with the Newcastle defender with the point of his elbow. Referee David Coote shows Kane a yellow card, but was he fortunate to escape further punishment?
VERDICT: Correct decision. The dividing line with these incidents is on whether the player throws his elbow into the face of the opponent. Did he throw it with malice, brutality and as a weapon or did he use it as leverage? His arm is not far from his side and he's gone up to head the ball. He never looks at Schar so I can see why it wasn't given as a red card.