Champions League Second Qualifying Round Referee Review: Key VAR Decisions and Controversies

The Champions League returned only two days after the World Cup final, but the pressure on Europe’s referees immediately returned with it.

Fourteen first-leg matches were played across the Champions League second qualifying round on July 21 and 22. Although the ties included clubs with very different European histories, the importance of the decisions was identical. One incorrect red card, penalty or offside judgement can determine whether a club reaches the Champions League, drops into the Europa League or loses millions in potential revenue.

The opening legs produced several important interventions. An Aarhus goalkeeper was sent off after VAR upgraded the original decision, a penalty awarded to Sturm Graz was cancelled following an on-field review, and Iberia Tbilisi had two goals disallowed for offside against Slovan Bratislava.

Not every controversial-looking incident was a refereeing mistake. In fact, the strongest conclusion from the first legs is that VAR generally corrected the most important on-field errors rather than creating new ones.

This Champions League second qualifying round referee review examines every major decision, explains the relevant Laws of the Game and assesses where the officials performed well and where improvement is still required.

Champions League second qualifying round first-leg results

The second qualifying round contains 24 teams in the champions path and four in the league path. The return legs will be played on July 28 and 29, with the winners advancing to the third qualifying round and the defeated teams transferring to the Europa League qualification process.

Match	Result
Mjällby vs Lincoln Red Imps	3-0
Sabah vs KuPS Kuopio	1-0
Ararat-Armenia vs Shamrock Rovers	2-0
Iberia Tbilisi vs Slovan Bratislava	0-2
Aarhus vs Lech Poznań	1-4
Thun vs Dinamo Zagreb	1-1
KÍ Klaksvík vs Kauno Žalgiris	0-0
Larne vs Crvena Zvezda	0-4
Víkingur Reykjavík vs Hapoel Be’er Sheva	2-1
Fenerbahçe vs Górnik Zabrze	1-0
Sturm Graz vs Hearts	4-0
Omonia vs Kairat Almaty	1-0
Levski Sofia vs Universitatea Craiova	1-0
Egnatia vs Celje	3-3

The largest referee discussions came from Aarhus, Graz and Tbilisi.

Aarhus vs Lech Poznań: Was Jesper Hansen’s red card correct?

The most influential VAR intervention of the round occurred during Lech Poznań’s 4-1 victory over Aarhus.

Aarhus goalkeeper Jesper Hansen was initially not shown the full disciplinary punishment after handling the ball and stopping a Lech attack. VAR reviewed the incident and recommended that the referee reconsider the sanction.

After the review, referee Oliver Reitala upgraded the decision and sent Hansen off for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity through handball. The dismissal was recorded in the 36th minute, with Aarhus forced to play the majority of the match with ten players.

Why the goalkeeper was sent off

A goalkeeper receives special permission to handle the ball only inside their own penalty area. Outside that area, the goalkeeper is subject to the same handball restrictions as every other player.

The location of the goalkeeper’s feet is not the deciding factor. The referee must judge where the hand or arm touched the ball.

Under Law 12, a player must be sent off when a handball offence outside the penalty area denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goalscoring opportunity. The Laws specifically confirm that a non-deliberate handball outside the penalty area can still produce a red card when it prevents an obvious opportunity.

When assessing DOGSO, the officials consider:

• The distance between the offence and the goal
• The general direction of the attack
• The attacker’s likelihood of controlling the ball
• The number and position of covering defenders

The available match information indicates that Hansen’s handball removed a clear opportunity and that no defender was realistically positioned to replace him as the final obstacle.

Why VAR was allowed to intervene

This was not an ordinary yellow-card review. A possible direct red card is one of VAR’s permitted categories.

The video assistant believed the initial disciplinary outcome contained a clear error and correctly recommended an on-field review. The referee then retained responsibility for the final decision and upgraded the sanction.

The IFAB VAR protocol permits intervention for a clear and obvious error or serious missed incident involving a goal, penalty, direct red card or mistaken identity.

The VAR Verdict

Correct intervention and correct red card.

The live situation was difficult because the referee had to assess the goalkeeper’s position, the point of handball contact, the direction of the ball and the positions of other defenders in real time.

VAR existed for precisely this type of incident. The intervention corrected a match-changing disciplinary error using evidence that was clearer on replay.

The dismissal clearly affected the match, but that does not make it unfair. Aarhus were disadvantaged because their goalkeeper committed a DOGSO offence, not because VAR incorrectly changed the game.

Sturm Graz vs Hearts: Why the penalty was overturned

Sturm Graz were leading Hearts 1-0 when referee Gergő Bogár awarded the Austrian side a penalty for an apparent handball by Hearts captain Harry Milne.

Włodarczyk’s shot struck Milne around the upper arm as he attempted to block it. The referee initially pointed to the penalty spot, but VAR Tamás Bognár advised him to review the incident.

After watching the replay at the pitchside monitor, Bogár cancelled the penalty and restarted play without a spot kick.

Why every ball-to-arm contact is not handball

The Laws do not state that every touch of the hand or arm is an offence.

A defender normally commits a handball offence when they deliberately handle the ball or when the position of the arm makes the body unnaturally bigger. The referee must consider whether the arm position was a consequence of the player’s natural movement in that specific situation.

The available description of the Sturm incident indicates that the ball struck Milne’s upper arm while it remained close enough to his body that it did not create an unjustifiable barrier.

The IFAB provides a comparable example in which a referee initially awards a penalty before cancelling it after an on-field review because the defender’s arm was close to the body and did not make the body unnaturally bigger.

Was the original decision a major referee mistake?

The initial award was incorrect, but it was an understandable live error.

Bogár saw a shot blocked by the defender’s arm from his running position. At full speed, that can create the impression that the arm has stopped a goal-bound attempt illegally.

The referee cannot freeze the image or immediately establish the exact arm position. VAR could examine the incident from a clearer angle and determine that the handball threshold had not been met.

A referee should not be criticised for changing a decision after seeing better evidence. The purpose of the monitor is to allow the official to correct a significant error before the restart.

The VAR Verdict

Correct VAR intervention and correct final decision.

The penalty should not have been awarded because the available evidence did not show a punishable handball position. Bogár also deserves credit for approaching the monitor without attempting to defend his original judgement.

The referee’s responsibility is not to preserve the first decision. It is to reach the correct final outcome.

Sturm later won 4-0, but the score does not reduce the importance of the reversal. At 1-0, an incorrect penalty could have changed Hearts’ tactical approach and damaged the tie earlier than necessary.

Iberia Tbilisi vs Slovan Bratislava: Two goals disallowed by VAR

Iberia Tbilisi suffered one of the most frustrating evenings of the round.

The Georgian champions lost 2-0 to Slovan Bratislava and had two apparent goals ruled out for offside after VAR interventions. The first occurred in the opening minutes, while another Iberia goal was disallowed in the 63rd minute.

Both decisions created debate around the assistant referees.

Did the assistants make two mistakes?

Technically, the assistant-referee team did not identify the offside offences before the goals were scored.

However, that does not automatically mean both situations represented major failures.

Assistant referees are instructed to delay the flag when an attacking situation is close and an immediate goalscoring opportunity is developing. The reason is simple: an incorrect early flag cannot be repaired if the assistant stops a legal attack, while a delayed flag allows VAR to check the goal afterwards.

For a marginal offside, allowing the move to finish is the safer procedure.

The first Iberia situation reportedly appeared relatively clear from the live broadcast angle but looked tighter when viewed using the images available to VAR. That difference demonstrates why assistants are encouraged not to guess during close situations.

What happened after the goals?

Once the ball entered the net, VAR checked the attacking phase and identified an offside position in each situation. The goals were then correctly disallowed.

Offside is largely a factual decision when the question is simply whether an attacker was ahead of the relevant defender. The referee does not normally need to conduct an on-field review for a factual offside correction.

A monitor would be required only when the referee must judge a subjective element, such as whether an offside player interfered with an opponent.

The VAR Verdict

Correct final outcomes, but a mixed assistant-referee performance.

VAR prevented two goals from being awarded incorrectly. That is the most important result.

Nevertheless, the assistant team will likely review both incidents carefully. A delayed flag is expected in a tight situation, but assistants must still make an accurate judgement after the attacking phase finishes.

If an offside is clearly visible rather than marginal, the flag should be raised once the immediate attack has concluded. VAR should be a safety net, not a substitute for assistant-referee accuracy.

Fenerbahçe vs Górnik Zabrze: A difficult atmosphere handled calmly

Manfredas Lukjančukas was given one of the most demanding appointments of the round as Fenerbahçe hosted Górnik Zabrze in Istanbul.

Fenerbahçe won 1-0 through Talisca’s free kick. The goal was checked before being confirmed, and there was no evidence of a reviewable offence serious enough to cancel it.

A smaller technical debate concerned the position of an attacking player close to Górnik’s defensive wall before the free kick was taken.

Law 13 states that when three or more defenders form a wall, every attacking player must remain at least one metre away until the ball is in play. If an attacker stands closer and the kick is taken, the defending team should receive an indirect free kick.

The available footage did not provide enough conclusive evidence to classify the Fenerbahçe situation as a clear error. The incident is nevertheless a useful reminder that officials must monitor both the ball and the players surrounding a defensive wall.

Lukjančukas otherwise appeared to control a potentially difficult match without unnecessary cards or major confrontations. Experienced German official Christian Dingert supported him as VAR.

Ararat-Armenia vs Shamrock Rovers: The referee was not the story

Ararat-Armenia earned an important 2-0 victory over Shamrock Rovers in Yerevan, with David Dickinson refereeing and Kevin Clancy operating as VAR.

The available post-match reporting concentrated on two costly Shamrock Rovers defensive mistakes rather than disputed refereeing decisions. Sandro Lima capitalised on a poor pass for the opening goal before Zidane Banjaqui scored the second late in the match.

There was no significant penalty, red-card or VAR controversy that altered the result.

That distinction is important. Referee analysis should not search for controversy in every match. When a team loses because of defensive errors or poor finishing, the officials should not be forced into the story without evidence.

Dickinson’s team completed the match without a major intervention becoming necessary.

Why UEFA uses experienced VARs with developing referees

The second qualifying round contained an interesting mixture of referee appointments.

Several developing or less internationally established referees were placed in the middle, while UEFA appointed video officials with significant experience from stronger domestic leagues.

Examples included:

• Oliver Reitala with Bundesliga referee Sören Storks as VAR for Aarhus vs Lech Poznań
• Lukas Fähndrich with Robert Schröder for Iberia vs Slovan
• Manfredas Lukjančukas with Christian Dingert for Fenerbahçe vs Górnik
• Gergő Bogár with experienced Hungarian official Tamás Bognár for Sturm Graz vs Hearts
• Adam Ladebäck with Premier League official Peter Bankes for Levski Sofia vs Universitatea Craiova

UEFA regulations require the Referees Committee to appoint officials from the official FIFA international list. VAR may be used in accordance with the IFAB Laws of the Game.

The structure allows UEFA to assess referees in meaningful European fixtures while providing an experienced safety layer in the video operation room.

However, the VAR cannot manage the entire match for the referee. The on-field official must still control physical contact, dissent, tactical fouls, time-wasting and player behaviour.

Were there major referee failures across the round?

Based on the confirmed incidents, there was no evidence of a widespread refereeing crisis during the first legs.

The three most significant VAR interventions produced defensible outcomes:

• Aarhus goalkeeper Jesper Hansen was correctly sent off for DOGSO by handball.
• Sturm Graz’s penalty was correctly cancelled because the arm contact was not punishable.
• Iberia’s two goals were correctly disallowed for offside.

The principal live errors were corrected before the matches restarted.

That does not mean every referee produced a perfect performance. There were disputed yellow cards, penalty appeals and smaller foul-recognition questions across the round. But none of the available evidence identifies another clear, decisive error comparable to the three main incidents.

The overall standard was therefore better than the number of VAR interventions might initially suggest.

VAR involvement should not automatically be interpreted as proof that a referee performed badly. The system is part of the officiating team. A successful correction means the team ultimately reached the right decision.

The biggest concern: assistant-referee dependence on VAR

The two disallowed Iberia goals provide the clearest area for technical discussion.

Delayed flags protect legal attacks, especially when the offside decision is marginal. That protocol is necessary.

The danger is that assistants become excessively dependent on technology and stop making confident decisions even when an offside position is reasonably clear.

A strong assistant referee must balance two responsibilities:

1. Avoid stopping a potentially legal goalscoring opportunity too early.
2. Make an accurate offside judgement after the immediate attacking phase has finished.

VAR can correct a missed offside after a goal. It cannot restore an attack stopped by an incorrect early flag. That is why UEFA will accept some delayed decisions, but observers will still assess whether the assistant’s original judgement was technically accurate.

The VAR Verdict’s overall assessment

Best VAR intervention

Jesper Hansen’s red card in Aarhus vs Lech Poznań

The VAR identified a potential DOGSO offence that was difficult for the referee to assess live. The review was within protocol and produced the correct sanction.

Best on-field review

Sturm Graz’s cancelled penalty against Hearts

The referee correctly changed his original handball decision after viewing evidence that showed the defender’s arm had not made the body unnaturally bigger.

Main area for improvement

Offside accuracy in Iberia vs Slovan Bratislava

Both goals were correctly removed, but two live offside misses in the same match will form an important part of the assistant referees’ UEFA assessment.

Overall refereeing rating

7.8/10

The first legs contained several difficult key match incidents, but VAR corrected the most important live errors. There was no confirmed mistake that directly produced an illegitimate goal or wrongly decided a match.

What referees must expect in the second legs

The return matches on July 28 and 29 will create a different refereeing challenge.

Teams protecting leads may attempt to slow restarts, manage injuries and break the rhythm of their opponents. Clubs chasing deficits are likely to press aggressively and appeal more strongly for penalties, cards and time-wasting sanctions.

The most difficult ties include:

• Shamrock Rovers attempting to overturn Ararat-Armenia’s 2-0 lead
• Iberia chasing Slovan after having two goals disallowed in Tbilisi
• Aarhus beginning the return match three goals behind Lech
• Hearts attempting an unlikely recovery from 4-0 down
• Egnatia and Celje restarting from a 3-3 aggregate position
• Fenerbahçe protecting a narrow 1-0 advantage in Poland

Referees will need to establish their disciplinary threshold early without using cards simply to respond to crowd pressure.

Accurate timekeeping will also be essential. A team protecting a first-leg advantage must not be allowed to reduce playing time through repeated delayed restarts or tactical treatment.

The VAR Verdict opinion

The opening legs showed VAR working close to its intended purpose.

The technology did not attempt to intervene in every physical challenge. It concentrated on clearly reviewable, match-changing incidents and corrected decisions involving a direct red card, penalty and goals.

The Aarhus red card was a particularly strong example. Without VAR, a goalkeeper could have remained on the field after denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity through handball.

The Sturm Graz reversal was equally important. Awarding a penalty whenever the ball touches a defender’s upper arm would be inconsistent with the Laws. The referee used the monitor correctly and removed the punishment.

In Tbilisi, VAR protected Slovan Bratislava from conceding two illegal goals. However, the assistant-referee team should not consider the corrections a complete success. The final decisions were accurate, but UEFA observers will also evaluate why the offsides were not identified live.

This is the balance football needs.

Referees should not be unfairly criticised whenever VAR changes a decision, but successful video corrections should not erase every technical mistake from the officials’ internal assessment.

The final outcome matters to the match. The original decision matters to the referee’s development.

Final verdict

The Champions League second qualifying round referee review produced more positive conclusions than controversies.

VAR correctly upgraded Jesper Hansen’s punishment to a red card, correctly removed Sturm Graz’s penalty and correctly disallowed two Iberia goals for offside.

The most important decisions were ultimately accurate.

There were still lessons for the officials. Assistant referees must avoid becoming dependent on VAR, referees must monitor attacking players around defensive walls, and UEFA must continue placing experienced video officials alongside developing referees.

The second legs will bring greater pressure, more time-management problems and stronger emotional reactions from teams facing elimination.

For now, however, the refereeing standard deserves a generally positive assessment. VAR influenced several matches, but it did so by correcting important errors rather than manufacturing controversy.