He could break his ankle. Where is VAR?
In the aftermath of a Europa League semi-final defeat at Villa Park, Aston Villa manager Unai Emery turned his gaze not toward the scoreline but toward a deeper question about justice and accountability in modern football. A dangerous, unpunished tackle on Ollie Watkins by Nottingham Forest's Elliot Anderson — one that VAR declined to review meaningfully — left Emery asking what purpose a corrective technology serves if it fails at the moments of greatest clarity. His frustration was not that of a sore loser, but of a man who has long believed in the promise of fairness and found it hollow when it mattered most.
- A studs-up sliding tackle on Ollie Watkins' ankle went entirely unpunished, despite carrying the kind of force that ends seasons and makes stadiums fall silent.
- Emery, a manager who has publicly defended VAR on multiple occasions, found himself unable to reconcile the technology's silence with its stated purpose — calling it 'so, so bad' and 'a huge mistake' in the same breath.
- The 1-0 defeat, sealed by a Chris Wood penalty that VAR itself had correctly awarded, deepened the sting: the system worked in one direction and failed completely in the other.
- Emery's repeated, almost disbelieving refrain — 'Where is VAR?' — captured a wider unease across European football about whether the technology is applied with any consistent logic.
- Villa now face the second leg of the semi-final a goal down, carrying both a tactical deficit and the psychological weight of feeling that the rules were not equally enforced.
Unai Emery left Villa Park after a 1-0 Europa League semi-final defeat to Nottingham Forest with something sharper than disappointment — a sense that a fundamental promise had been broken. The match had been decided by a Chris Wood penalty in the second half, a decision Emery accepted without protest once he was told VAR had confirmed it. But a separate incident, one that VAR had chosen not to act on, was what truly consumed him.
Earlier in the match, Forest midfielder Elliot Anderson had slid in on Ollie Watkins. He won the ball, but his studs followed through high and caught Watkins' ankle — the kind of contact that carries the threat of serious injury. Neither the on-field referee nor VAR intervened. The incident was cleared after what appeared to be only the briefest of reviews.
Emery was generous about referee Joao Pinheiro's overall performance, rating him 'ten out of ten.' But the VAR failure was another matter entirely. Speaking immediately after the final whistle, he was blunt and bewildered in equal measure: 'The VAR is so, so bad. It's a clear red card. He could break his ankle. Where are you?' When he met the written press shortly after, having watched the replay, his conviction had only hardened. 'It is a huge mistake,' he said. 'The VAR has a huge responsibility and must give us an explanation.'
What gave his criticism particular weight was its context. Emery has not been a reflexive VAR critic — he praised the technology in 2023 and defended a red card decision against his own player in 2024. His frustration here was not with VAR's existence but with its inconsistency: a system that correctly reversed a penalty call on one end of the pitch and said nothing about a potentially ankle-breaking tackle on the other. 'I am 100% with VAR,' he said, 'but we must manage it in the right way.' The question he kept returning to — 'Where is VAR?' — was less a complaint than a challenge, one that European football's governing bodies will find difficult to answer.
Unai Emery sat in the post-match interview room at Villa Park, still burning from a 1-0 loss that felt like a theft. His team had just played Nottingham Forest in the first leg of a Europa League semi-final, and while the scoreline stung—a penalty converted by Chris Wood in the second half—what truly enraged the Aston Villa manager was something that had happened much earlier, something the officials had chosen to ignore.
In the first half, Forest midfielder Elliot Anderson had slid in to challenge Ollie Watkins. The tackle itself was clean enough at first—Anderson won the ball. But as his leg extended through the play, his studs came up high and caught Watkins' ankle. It was the kind of contact that can end a season, the kind that makes you wince in the stands. The on-field referee, Joao Pinheiro, saw it and did nothing. VAR, watching from a screen somewhere, also did nothing. The incident was cleared after what appeared to be only the briefest of reviews.
Emery had praise for Pinheiro's overall management of the match—"fantastic, fantastic job, 10 out of 10," he told TNT Sports immediately after the final whistle. But the VAR decision, or rather the failure to make one, unleashed something different in him. "The VAR is so, so bad," he said. "It's a clear red card. I don't understand why the VAR is not calling the referee because it's so clear." He returned to the same point again and again in those first moments: the danger, the clarity, the responsibility that had been abandoned. "He could break his ankle," Emery said. "Wow, VAR—where are you?"
When he faced the written press minutes later, the anger had not cooled. If anything, watching the replay had sharpened it. Emery acknowledged that he had not initially focused on the penalty that decided the match—the one where Lucas Digne was penalised for handling Omari Hutchinson's cross. "Everyone is telling me it's a penalty," he said, and he accepted that decision without complaint. The VAR had made the right call there, even if the initial on-field judgment had been wrong. But Anderson's tackle remained indefensible in his mind.
"I watched the action of Anderson on Watkins, and the referee did a fantastic job," Emery repeated, as if trying to separate the two failures. "But after watching it again, it is the VAR responsibility. It is a huge mistake. Ollie Watkins was close to breaking his ankle." He pressed the point with the intensity of a man who had spent twenty years in coaching and had learned to recognize the difference between a tight call and a clear one. "One action like that can break his ankle," he said. "The VAR makes sense if they are fair. What is your opinion? Wow."
What made Emery's frustration particularly pointed was that he had not always been a VAR skeptic. In October 2023, he had said the technology was good for football, that it helped referees. In December 2024, after Jhon Duran was sent off against Newcastle, he had defended VAR's use, saying the red card was clear and the on-field referee should have seen it immediately. But this was different. This was a moment where the system had multiple chances to intervene and had failed at every stage. "The VAR has a huge responsibility and he must give us an explanation," Emery said. "It is crazy!"
The penalty that cost Villa the match had at least been corrected by VAR—the technology had spotted that Hutchinson had kept the ball in play when it looked like it had gone out, and the penalty was awarded. But there was no correction for Anderson's tackle, no intervention, no explanation. For Emery, that inconsistency was the real wound. "I am 100% with VAR," he said, "but we must manage it good and in the right way. One action like that, there is no doubt. Where is VAR?" The question hung in the air unanswered, as it would likely remain.
Notable Quotes
It's a clear red card. I don't understand why the VAR is not calling the referee because it's so clear. It's a huge, huge mistake.— Unai Emery, Aston Villa manager
The VAR has a huge responsibility and he must give us an explanation. It is crazy!— Unai Emery
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
You praised the referee but attacked VAR. Why separate them so sharply?
Because Pinheiro had ninety minutes of live action to manage, split-second decisions, the chaos of the match. VAR has one job—to catch the clear errors. Anderson's tackle was clear. That's not a judgment call.
But VAR did review it, didn't they? Briefly?
That's what made it worse. They looked and still said nothing. That's not a miss—that's a choice. Or incompetence. Either way, it's worse than not looking at all.
You said you support VAR in principle. Do you still?
I do, but only if it works. A system that catches some errors and misses others—that's not justice, that's randomness. If VAR can't handle a studs-up tackle to the ankle, what can it handle?
The penalty that decided the match—you accepted that VAR decision.
Because it was correct. VAR got it right. So I know they can do the job. Which makes the Anderson decision even more inexplicable.
What do you want now?
An explanation. Not an apology. Just tell me why you looked at that and decided it wasn't a red card. Help me understand the logic, because I cannot see it.