Aston Villa manager Unai Emery delivered a scathing critique on the video assistant referee following his side’s 1-0 defeat to Nottingham Forest in the first leg of their Europa League knockout semi. The Spanish coach was particularly incensed that VAR failed to intervene when Forest midfield player Elliot Anderson avoided sanction for a reckless slide challenge on Villa’s Ollie Watkins in the opening period, a challenge Emery called potentially ankle-breaking. Whilst Emery praised referee Joao Pinheiro’s management of the match, he delivered two fierce attacks against VAR’s handling of the incident, asking why the system failed to identify the clear red card offence. Forest ultimately won the tie through a VAR-awarded penalty converted by Chris Wood, a decision Emery accepted, but the Anderson incident remained the focal point of his post-match frustration.
The Occurrence That Triggered Anger
The row involved a first-half tackle by Anderson that had Emery certain his player had narrowly escaped serious injury. Anderson’s challenge started without incident, with the Forest midfielder securing possession cleanly before his continuation struck Watkins’ ankle with a high studs-up contact. Referee Joao Pinheiro allowed play to continue without hesitation, and VAR’s involvement seemed minimal at best, with only what was described as a brief examination before the incident was cleared and play continued.
Emery’s frustration was exacerbated by what he saw as a marked difference in how VAR responded elsewhere during the match. Whilst the system remained dormant for Anderson’s challenge, it quickly spotted a handball by Lucas Digne when examining Forest’s match-winning strike. The penalty call itself, which Chris Wood netted, depended on VAR properly confirming that Omari Hutchinson had kept the ball in play before crossing—a tight decision that was subjected to detailed scrutiny. For Emery, the inconsistency was deeply frustrating.
- Anderson’s challenge came high and with studs showing, catching Watkins’ ankle dangerously.
- Referee Pinheiro took no action and the VAR check seemed extremely brief.
- Emery feared the challenge could have caused a significant ankle problem.
- VAR subsequently stepped in firmly for Forest’s match-deciding handball call.
Emery’s Fervent Post-Match Remarks
Unai Emery’s anger spilled out in two distinct post-match interviews, initially in his first response to TNT Sports and later during the official press conference. The Villa manager’s anger was directed entirely at the VAR system instead of referee Joao Pinheiro, whom he repeatedly praised for his on-pitch management across the full ninety minutes. Displaying obvious exasperation, Emery kept questioning where VAR had been regarding the Anderson incident, calling it “so, so bad” and stressing the likely seriousness of the tackle. His manner wavered between disbelief and acceptance as he battled to grasp how such a clear-cut red card offence could escape the system’s scrutiny.
The Spanish coach’s second tirade came during the press conference, where his frustration had not diminished. Emery stressed his general support for VAR in principle, pointing out his two decades of managerial experience had taught him that some decisions are truly borderline. However, he insisted this was not one of them. “One action like that can break his ankle,” he repeated, demanding that VAR accept accountability for what he viewed as a catastrophic failure. Emery’s language became increasingly pointed, describing the oversight as “crazy” and stressing that such dangerous challenges should never be overlooked, regardless of other factors in the match.
A Marked Difference in Acclaim
Perhaps most striking about Emery’s assessment was his unwavering praise for Pinheiro’s general display. The manager consistently gave the Portuguese referee top marks for his management of the game, describing his control as “fantastic” and awarding him “10 out of 10.” This differentiation of referee and VAR system was deliberate and consistent throughout both interviews. Emery made clear his regard for Pinheiro’s positioning, decision-making, and control of the 90 minutes, suggesting the on-pitch official had done everything within his remit to handle the match with fairness and professionalism.
The distinction Emery made between Pinheiro’s exceptional performance and VAR’s failure highlighted a deeper dissatisfaction with the way the system was applied. Whilst the match official could not be expected to catch every angle or nuance in the moment, VAR was designed specifically for these exact situations. Emery’s continual questioning—”Where is VAR? Where are you?”—underscored his conviction that the system had abandoned its core responsibility. He took Forest’s penalty award without complaint, acknowledging VAR’s proper involvement in that particular case, but the Anderson situation represented an inexcusable failure in the system’s fundamental duty to safeguard player welfare.
The Penalty Call and Forest’s Victory
Nottingham Forest’s winning goal resulted from a VAR-awarded penalty, with striker Chris Wood scoring from the penalty spot in what proved to be the decisive moment of the opening match. The decision focused on Lucas Digne’s handball as he tried to clear Omari Hutchinson’s cross during the latter stages. At first, the referee on the field had declined to award the penalty, seemingly believing the ball had already gone behind for a goal-kick before Hutchinson recovered it. However, VAR stepped in and the replays conclusively demonstrated that the Forest player had succeeded in keeping the ball in play, thereby justifying the penalty award and Wood’s resulting goal.
Emery’s reaction to Forest’s penalty differed markedly to his volcanic reaction regarding the Anderson incident. The Villa manager noted that he had not thoroughly reviewed the penalty decision as it happened, observing that observers in his vicinity had made clear it was in fact a valid decision. Crucially, he embraced VAR’s intervention without protest or complaint, demonstrating that his criticism was not born from sour grapes about the result itself. His preparedness to accept the validity of the penalty decision—and to praise VAR’s proper use in that instance—strengthened his central argument: the system had failed not in principle but in its uneven application on the night.
| Decision | Emery’s Stance |
|---|---|
| Anderson’s studs-up challenge on Watkins | Furious – demanded explanation, called it a “huge mistake” and “crazy” |
| Forest’s penalty award for Digne’s handball | Accepted without complaint, acknowledged VAR’s correct intervention |
| VAR system’s overall performance | Supportive in principle but severely critical of inconsistent application |
A Manager’s Long-Standing Stance on VAR
Emery’s biting criticism of VAR’s conduct on Wednesday evening was not born from a sudden loss of faith in the system. The Spanish coach has regularly affirmed across his managerial tenure that video assistance constitutes a necessary and valuable instrument in contemporary football, provided it is implemented fairly and rigorously. His fundamental argument does not focus on whether VAR should exist, but rather on how it should be implemented with steadfast benchmarks and complete dedication to the safety of players. In his remarks after the match, Emery was at pains to emphasise this distinction, repeatedly stressing his backing of the fundamental principles of the system whilst deploring what he perceived as a total collapse in implementation on this particular occasion.
During his two decades as a coach, Emery has witnessed the evolution of football’s regulatory frameworks and has generally embraced technical innovation when it serves the sport’s standards. However, his patience with inconsistent application appears to have diminished. He articulated a clear expectation that VAR operators must exercise the same diligence and protective instinct as on-pitch referees, particularly when player welfare is at stake. His insistence that the Anderson incident represented “no doubt” in terms of culpability underscored his belief that VAR’s primary responsibility extends beyond simply fixing obvious errors—it must actively protect players from hazardous play that might escape a referee’s immediate attention.
Uniformity and Disappointment
The inconsistency that most notably annoyed Emery was VAR’s inconsistent involvement during the game. The system had functioned decisively when assessing the penalty call concerning Digne’s handball, yet functioned with scant rigour when reviewing Anderson’s challenge on Watkins. This inconsistency formed the crux of Emery’s complaint: if VAR is capable to scrutinise one incident thoroughly, why does it not apply the same meticulous standard to all potentially dangerous play? His repeated questioning—”Where is VAR? Where are you?”—reflected not merely dissatisfaction but real confusion at what he viewed as a fundamental dereliction of duty by officials tasked with maintaining fairness and safety.
Emery’s annoyance was exacerbated by the shortness of VAR’s apparent review of the Anderson incident. According to accounts, the VAR official conducted only what looked like a cursory examination before clearing the challenge, a marked divergence to the comprehensive review applied to the penalty decision. This inconsistency indicated to the Villa manager that VAR’s protocols were poorly executed or wilfully inconsistent. His insistence that the VAR operator “must offer us an explanation” showed a manager pushed to the limits of his patience, seeking accountability from officials whose decisions fundamentally affect both the competitive fairness and the physical wellbeing of his players.