Champions League Referee Decisions: Every VAR Call and Controversy From September 8

The first night of the 2026/27 league phase produced several significant Champions League referee decisions, but no single pattern of officiating controversy across the six matches.

The clearest VAR interventions came in Belgium, France and Greece. Sandro Schärer changed his decision and awarded Club Brugge a penalty for Aaron Wan-Bissaka’s handball against Aston Villa, Georgi Kabakov sent off Ethan Mbappé after reviewing his elbow on Natan in Lille vs Real Betis, and AEK Athens had a Luka Jović goal disallowed for offside following VAR involvement.

The most difficult unresolved incident came in Porto, where Marc Guéhi caught Gabri Veiga with his arm during an aerial challenge but escaped disciplinary punishment. Real Madrid vs Inter also produced two penalty-area debates for Michael Oliver, while Borussia Dortmund’s late penalty against Villarreal generated discussion around the contact inside the area.

UEFA has not published individual post-match refereeing explanations for these incidents at the time of writing. Our conclusions are therefore The VAR Verdict’s initial assessments, based on available footage descriptions, match reporting and the current 2026/27 IFAB Laws of the Game and VAR Protocol.

Champions League referee and VAR teams

UEFA officially appointed the six referees for Tuesday’s opening fixtures.

Match	Referee	VAR
AEK Athens 1-0 LASK	Luis Godinho	Tiago Martins
Club Brugge 2-3 Aston Villa	Sandro Schärer	Fedayi San
Borussia Dortmund 3-2 Villarreal	Simone Sozza	Daniele Chiffi
Porto 0-2 Manchester City	Szymon Marciniak	Pol van Boekel
Lille 2-3 Real Betis	Georgi Kabakov	Bram Van Driessche
Real Madrid 2-1 Inter	Michael Oliver	Andrew Dallas

The VAR assignments are confirmed through club and match information sources. Borussia Dortmund, for example, confirmed Daniele Chiffi as VAR for Sozza, while Inter officially listed Dallas alongside Oliver for the Bernabéu match.

AEK Athens 1-0 LASK: Jović goal disallowed after VAR offside

Referee: Luis Godinho
VAR: Tiago Martins

AEK’s return to the Champions League ended in a 1-0 victory, but the Greek side briefly thought they had doubled their advantage during the second half.

Luka Jović headed the ball into the net in the 64th minute following a Lovro Majer delivery.

The goal did not survive the review.

Reports from Greece confirm that VAR examined the attacking move and the goal was eventually disallowed for an offside offence earlier in the attacking phase.

This is important because an offside offence in the attacking possession phase before a goal is specifically reviewable under the VAR Protocol.

Unlike a subjective foul, offside is predominantly a factual decision. Once the relevant attacking player is established to have been in an offside position and subsequently committed an offside offence, there is no “clear and obvious” judgement threshold in the same sense as a subjective penalty decision.

The VAR Verdict: ✅ Correct intervention

The goal was correctly disallowed if the VAR offside information established the offence during the attacking phase.

There is no credible evidence at present suggesting that Godinho and Tiago Martins made an error.

Provisional referee rating: 7.5/10

Godinho had a relatively quiet match from a major-decision perspective, with VAR correctly identifying the main factual issue of the night.

Club Brugge 2-3 Aston Villa: Wan-Bissaka handball penalty after VAR review

Referee: Sandro Schärer
VAR: Fedayi San

One of the night’s clearest examples of VAR correcting an on-field decision came in Bruges.

Aston Villa were leading 3-1 when Joaquin Seys sent the ball into the penalty area. It struck Aaron Wan-Bissaka’s raised arm and initially went behind, with no penalty awarded.

VAR Fedayi San checked the incident and Schärer was sent to the monitor.

After the on-field review, the Swiss referee changed his decision and awarded Club Brugge a penalty. Nicolò Tresoldi converted to make it 3-2.

Why was it handball?

The current Law 12 does not make every ball-to-hand contact an offence.

The key question is whether the player has made the body unnaturally bigger with the position of the hand or arm.

IFAB specifically explains that an extended arm which is not justified by the player’s movement can constitute a handball offence.

Contemporary descriptions of the incident show Wan-Bissaka’s arm raised and away from his body when the ball struck it.

That significantly increased the space occupied by the defender.

The VAR Verdict: ✅ Correct penalty and correct VAR intervention

This was exactly the type of penalty/no-penalty mistake VAR is designed to correct.

Schärer initially allowed play to continue, San identified the potential handball, and an on-field review allowed the referee to make the final subjective judgement.

The process was correct and the final decision was supportable under Law 12.

Provisional referee rating: 8/10

A strong example of the referee and VAR working together correctly rather than treating an initial on-field decision as irreversible.

Borussia Dortmund 3-2 Villarreal: late Dortmund penalty creates debate

Referee: Simone Sozza
VAR: Daniele Chiffi

Dortmund’s 3-2 victory over Villarreal became increasingly chaotic late in the match.

A late penalty awarded to Dortmund proved crucial, with Serhou Guirassy converting as the German side eventually secured the victory.

Spanish reporting identifies Santiago Mouriño as the Villarreal defender responsible for the penalty offence.

The incident produced some debate because Guirassy and the defender were involved in significant physical contact as they competed for position.

That creates an important Law 12 question.

Holding an opponent can result in a direct free kick or penalty when the offence prevents the opponent from moving freely or competing for the ball. But football also permits normal physical contact, particularly when two players are simultaneously using their bodies to establish position.

For VAR, the question is narrower still.

Even if another referee might judge the physical contact differently, Daniele Chiffi should only recommend that the penalty be overturned if the available replay clearly demonstrates that Sozza made an obvious error.

The VAR Verdict: ⚖️ Penalty supportable, no confirmed VAR error

Available reporting confirms the penalty offence but does not provide enough conclusive evidence to classify Sozza’s decision as clearly wrong.

There also appears to have been contact and holding between the players rather than a completely fabricated penalty situation.

For that reason, our current conclusion is that the penalty was supportable as a subjective decision.

This is not the same as saying every referee must award it.

Until more conclusive angles or an official UEFA interpretation emerge, there is no basis to call it a clear VAR error.

Provisional referee rating: 7/10

A demanding closing period for Sozza. The major penalty decision remains defensible, although it is one of Tuesday’s situations worth reviewing again if better angles become available.

Porto 0-2 Manchester City: should Marc Guéhi have been sent off?

Referee: Szymon Marciniak
VAR: Pol van Boekel

This was arguably the night’s biggest unresolved refereeing controversy.

Manchester City defender Marc Guéhi challenged Gabri Veiga for an aerial ball during the first half and caught the Porto midfielder with his arm.

Veiga was left bleeding and required treatment.

Marciniak did not award a foul or show Guéhi a card, and VAR Pol van Boekel did not recommend a red-card review.

The incident generated significant debate, with some observers viewing Guéhi’s arm as dangerous while others argued that the movement was a natural part of attempting to head the ball.

Does blood mean it must be a red card?

No.

The outcome of a challenge is relevant evidence but does not automatically determine the disciplinary sanction.

A player can cause a significant injury without committing serious foul play, and another challenge can endanger an opponent’s safety even if the opponent is not injured.

Under Law 12, the referee must judge the nature and force of the action.

If Guéhi used excessive force or endangered Veiga’s safety while challenging for the ball, the correct sanction would be a red card for serious foul play.

If the arm movement was a normal or unavoidable consequence of legitimately jumping for the ball and did not involve excessive force, a red card would not be justified.

Could VAR intervene?

Yes.

Potential serious foul play resulting in a direct red card is a reviewable VAR category under the current 2026/27 protocol.

Van Boekel therefore had the authority to recommend an on-field review if the replay showed a probable clear missed red-card offence.

The VAR Verdict: ⚠️ Most questionable non-intervention of the night

This is the incident we would most like to see with complete broadcast angles.

The fact Guéhi was challenging for an aerial ball means an arm-to-head collision is not automatically violent conduct or serious foul play.

However, the force of the contact, the position of the arm and the fact Veiga suffered a facial injury make a detailed red-card check essential.

On the material currently available, we are not prepared to label it a definite VAR error, but this was clearly a more serious potential red-card situation than an ordinary accidental collision.

If another angle shows Guéhi leading into Veiga with a forceful, avoidable elbow or forearm, Marciniak should have been sent to the monitor.

Donnarumma and the Porto penalty appeal

There was another penalty-area moment involving Gianluigi Donnarumma and a Porto attacker.

The goalkeeper made contact after coming from his goal, but the attacking player was also caught in an offside situation. Contemporary reporting notes that the potential penalty was effectively neutralised by the preceding offside issue.

The sequence of offences matters.

If the attacker commits an offside offence before the goalkeeper subsequently commits an ordinary careless challenge, play restarts for the offside rather than with a penalty.

A reckless or sending-off offence could still result in disciplinary action even when the restart is determined by the earlier offside.

There is insufficient evidence from the available descriptions to suggest a missed penalty in this sequence.

Half-time tunnel confrontation

The first half also ended with a heated confrontation involving players and staff from both clubs.

Reports describe security becoming involved in calming the situation.

A referee retains disciplinary authority during the half-time interval. Direct-red-card violent conduct can also fall within VAR’s remit if a serious incident is missed.

However, there is currently no verified evidence identifying a specific act from the tunnel confrontation that required a sending-off.

We therefore cannot manufacture a disciplinary error simply because the confrontation looked heated.

Provisional referee rating: 6.5/10

Marciniak generally controlled a difficult game, but the Guéhi-Veiga collision is the strongest reason to question the officiating team.

Lille 2-3 Real Betis: Ethan Mbappé sent off after VAR review

Referee: Georgi Kabakov
VAR: Bram Van Driessche

The clearest red-card VAR intervention of Tuesday night came in France.

Lille’s Ethan Mbappé became involved with Real Betis defender Natan shortly after Betis had completed a rapid second-half turnaround.

Mbappé struck Natan with his elbow.

Kabakov did not initially produce the red card, but following VAR intervention he went to the monitor.

After reviewing the incident, Kabakov sent Mbappé off. He also cautioned Natan for his role in provoking the confrontation.

Why was Ethan Mbappé’s red card correct?

This was no longer a normal challenge for possession.

Under Law 12, when a player uses or attempts to use excessive force or brutality against an opponent when not challenging for the ball, the offence is violent conduct.

IFAB also treats deliberate strikes to the head or face extremely seriously unless the force used is negligible.

Natan’s actions immediately before the incident do not give Mbappé the right to retaliate.

Provocation can itself be punished, usually as unsporting behaviour, while retaliation can independently be violent conduct.

That is exactly what Kabakov ultimately decided.

The VAR Verdict: ✅ Correct red card and excellent VAR intervention

VAR was fully entitled to intervene because violent conduct is a direct-red-card situation.

Van Driessche identified the serious missed incident, Kabakov reviewed it himself and changed the sanction.

Natan’s yellow card and Mbappé’s red are not contradictory.

One player can commit a cautionable act of provocation while the other responds with conduct serious enough to justify a sending-off.

This was one of the strongest pieces of VAR officiating from Tuesday’s matches.

Provisional referee rating: 8/10

Kabakov and Van Driessche reached the correct disciplinary outcome through the proper review process.

Real Madrid 2-1 Inter: two penalty appeals for Michael Oliver

Referee: Michael Oliver
VAR: Andrew Dallas

The Bernabéu produced fewer major interventions but several subjective decisions.

Michael Oliver waved away two notable Real Madrid penalty appeals during the first half.

The first involved Vinícius Júnior and Benjamin Pavard. The second, and more debatable incident, involved Yann Bisseck’s intervention on Kylian Mbappé.

Andrew Dallas checked the incidents but did not recommend an on-field review.

Pavard vs Vinícius

Vinícius drove into the penalty area and went down after Pavard challenged him.

Oliver allowed play to continue.

The important Law 12 principle is that playing the ball first does not automatically make a challenge legal.

A defender can touch the ball and still foul an opponent if the action is careless, reckless or uses excessive force.

However, available descriptions do not clearly establish that Pavard committed a careless offence after challenging for the ball.

The VAR Verdict: ⚖️ Supportable no-penalty decision

Oliver’s judgement was subjective but supportable.

More importantly, there is no evidence that Dallas had footage demonstrating a clear and obvious missed penalty.

VAR was therefore correct not to intervene unless its additional angles showed something substantially different.

Bisseck vs Mbappé

A few minutes later, Bisseck slid across Mbappé as the Real Madrid attacker attempted to control the ball in the area.

This is a closer call.

The important factors are whether Bisseck played the ball, whether he contacted Mbappé before doing so, and whether the challenge itself was careless.

Available match reporting raised the question of whether the defender had actually reached the ball cleanly.

The VAR Verdict: ⚖️ Debatable, but no confirmed VAR error

If Bisseck took Mbappé before playing the ball, a penalty should have been awarded.

But available evidence does not yet establish that clearly enough for us to call it a definite mistake.

And this is where the distinction between referee decision and VAR decision matters.

Even if Oliver’s original judgement were marginally wrong, Dallas should only intervene if the video demonstrates a clear and obvious error.

A decision remaining debatable after several replays generally supports a non-intervention.

Valverde allowed to challenge Martínez

Real Madrid’s second goal also produced a useful Laws point.

Inter goalkeeper Josep Martínez was attempting to control the ball with his feet when Federico Valverde pressed him, won the ball and scored.

There is no special rule protecting a goalkeeper simply because he is inside the penalty area.

A goalkeeper cannot be challenged while controlling the ball with the hand or arm. A goalkeeper playing normally with his feet can be challenged like any other player.

The VAR Verdict: ✅ Goal correctly allowed

Valverde was entitled to compete for the ball.

This was an Inter goalkeeper mistake rather than a refereeing mistake.

Inter officially confirmed Oliver’s full team, including Dallas as VAR and Michael Salisbury as AVAR.

Provisional referee rating: 7.5/10

No confirmed major error from Oliver. The Bisseck-Mbappé incident remains his most debatable judgement.

What did the 2026/27 VAR Protocol allow?

The basic principle remains that VAR is not there to make every subjective decision perfect.

VAR can intervene in match-changing situations involving:

• goal/no goal
• penalty/no penalty
• red-card offences
• mistaken identity
• a clearly incorrect second caution resulting in a red card under the new 2026/27 provision
• clearly incorrect corner decisions where the competition has adopted that optional procedure

The original on-field decision should only be changed for a clear and obvious error or serious missed incident within those categories.

That distinction explains several of Tuesday’s decisions.

Wan-Bissaka’s handball was reviewable because it was a potential missed penalty.

Ethan Mbappé’s elbow was reviewable because it was potential violent conduct.

Guéhi’s challenge was reviewable because it potentially reached the serious-foul-play threshold.

The Real Madrid penalty appeals were checked, but Dallas was not required to intervene merely because the challenges were debatable.

Champions League major decisions summary

Match	Incident	Decision	VAR Verdict
AEK vs LASK	Jović goal, offside in attacking phase	Goal disallowed	✅ Correct
Brugge vs Aston Villa	Wan-Bissaka handball	Penalty after OFR	✅ Correct
Dortmund vs Villarreal	Late Dortmund penalty	Penalty	⚖️ Supportable
Porto vs Man City	Guéhi arm/elbow on Veiga	No card	⚠️ Needs closer scrutiny
Porto vs Man City	Donnarumma collision	No penalty after offside situation	✅/⚖️ No clear error established
Lille vs Betis	Ethan Mbappé elbow on Natan	Red after OFR	✅ Correct
Lille vs Betis	Natan provocation	Yellow card	✅ Supportable
Real Madrid vs Inter	Pavard vs Vinícius	No penalty	⚖️ Supportable
Real Madrid vs Inter	Bisseck vs Mbappé	No penalty	⚖️ Debatable
Real Madrid vs Inter	Valverde challenge on Martínez	Goal	✅ Correct

Quick answers

Was Ethan Mbappé’s red card against Real Betis correct?

Yes. Available reporting shows Mbappé struck Natan with his elbow away from a normal challenge for the ball. Kabakov reviewed the incident after VAR intervention and correctly sent him off for conduct that meets the violent-conduct standard.

Was Aston Villa’s Wan-Bissaka handball a penalty?

Yes. Wan-Bissaka’s arm was raised away from his body and made his body bigger. VAR correctly recommended an on-field review and Schärer correctly awarded the penalty.

Why was Luka Jović’s goal against LASK disallowed?

VAR identified an offside offence during AEK’s attacking phase before the goal. Because offside is a factual reviewable element of the scoring sequence, the goal was cancelled.

Should Marc Guéhi have been sent off against Porto?

Possibly, but it is not confirmed. His arm made significant contact with Gabri Veiga during an aerial challenge. The decisive question is whether the movement was a legitimate consequence of challenging for the ball or involved excessive force that endangered Veiga’s safety. More complete footage is needed before calling it a definite red-card error.

Did VAR make a mistake in Real Madrid vs Inter?

There is currently no confirmed major VAR error. The Pavard-Vinícius and Bisseck-Mbappé situations were reviewable penalty incidents, but neither has yet been shown to meet the clear-and-obvious threshold for intervention.

Which VAR intervention was clearest on Tuesday?

The Ethan Mbappé red card and Wan-Bissaka handball were the clearest subjective interventions. Both resulted in referees being sent to the monitor and changing their original decisions.

Referee ratings

Referee	Match	Rating
Luis Godinho	AEK 1-0 LASK	7.5/10
Sandro Schärer	Club Brugge 2-3 Aston Villa	8/10
Simone Sozza	Dortmund 3-2 Villarreal	7/10
Szymon Marciniak	Porto 0-2 Manchester City	6.5/10
Georgi Kabakov	Lille 2-3 Real Betis	8/10
Michael Oliver	Real Madrid 2-1 Inter	7.5/10

These are provisional The VAR Verdict ratings based primarily on the significant refereeing and VAR incidents reviewed, rather than a complete whistle-by-whistle technical assessment of every decision across all six matches.

Final VAR Verdict

Tuesday’s Champions League opening night produced more good VAR work than clear VAR mistakes.

The strongest interventions were straightforward to defend.

✅ Sandro Schärer correctly awarded Club Brugge a penalty after VAR identified Wan-Bissaka’s handball.

✅ Georgi Kabakov and Bram Van Driessche correctly upgraded Ethan Mbappé’s retaliation against Natan to a red card.

✅ AEK’s second goal was correctly cancelled when VAR identified an offside offence during the attacking phase.

The more subjective situations require greater caution.

⚖️ Borussia Dortmund’s late penalty against Villarreal was debatable but remains supportable.

⚖️ Michael Oliver’s two Real Madrid penalty decisions were difficult, particularly Bisseck against Mbappé, but there is no evidence yet of a clear VAR failure by Andrew Dallas.

⚠️ The most concerning incident was Marc Guéhi’s contact with Gabri Veiga in Porto. Because the challenge involved forceful arm contact to an opponent during an aerial contest, it deserved a serious red-card check. Whether it actually crossed the serious-foul-play threshold depends on the complete replay angles.

For now, The VAR Verdict does not identify a confirmed major VAR error across Tuesday’s six Champions League matches.

The Guéhi-Veiga challenge is the main incident that could change that assessment if further footage or an official UEFA explanation establishes that the Manchester City defender endangered his opponent’s safety.

Tuesday also demonstrated why VAR analysis cannot stop at saying a referee “got the decision wrong.”

Some decisions are factual. Some are subjective. Some are wrong on the field but do not reach the VAR intervention threshold. Others, such as violent conduct, require VAR to act when the referee has missed a serious incident.

Understanding that difference remains essential when assessing referees in the 2026/27 Champions League.