The Guardian’s Chris Foy examines two contentious refereeing decisions involving Erling Haaland’s goal and a penalty awarded to Sunderland. According to the supplied headline, Foy believes the goal should not have stood but considers VAR’s intervention in the Sunderland penalty decision to have been correct.
The excerpt does not provide details of the match, the incidents themselves or the reasoning behind either decision. It therefore supports only the broad contrast identified in Foy’s assessment: one decision is criticised, while the other is defended.
The headline presents the issue as a debate over the consistency and use of video assistant refereeing. Foy’s view, as described by The Guardian Football feed, is not that VAR was inherently wrong in the match, but that its application produced different outcomes for the two incidents.
No further information is supplied about the referee, the teams beyond Sunderland and Haaland’s involvement, the timing of the decisions or any response from the clubs or players. Those details cannot be established from the available source material.