VAR Admits Error After Feyenoord–AZ Penalty Decision
The controversial penalty decision in Feyenoord’s 2-0 win over AZ is set for review after Dutch refereeing officials acknowledged that the Video Assistant Referee should not have asked referee Danny Makkelie to reconsider his original call. The admission has renewed debate about how VAR is used in Dutch football and whether the intervention changed the course of a key moment before half-time.
Raymond van Meenen, head of refereeing, said on ESPN’s Goedemorgen Eredivisie that the incident would be examined. ESPN subsequently reported that the VAR team regretted sending Makkelie to the pitchside monitor, having concluded that the available footage did not justify overturning his decision.
How the Feyenoord–AZ Penalty Incident Unfolded
Makkelie initially awarded AZ a penalty after Feyenoord goalkeeper Tjark Ernst made contact with striker Mexx Meerdink. Ernst caught Meerdink’s foot as the forward moved into the penalty area, causing him to lose his balance and fall.
The referee’s first impression was that the contact amounted to a foul. However, the VAR reviewed the incident and recommended an on-field review. After watching the footage at the monitor, Makkelie reversed his decision, leaving AZ without a penalty shortly before the interval.
Feyenoord went on to win the match 2-0, but the decision quickly became a major talking point. Penalty calls can have an outsized influence on a game, particularly when they occur near half-time. A successful spot kick might have changed the score, the teams’ tactical approach and the pressure on Feyenoord in the second half. That makes the later VAR admission especially significant, even though the result itself remains unchanged.
Why VAR Says the Referee Should Not Have Been Sent to the Monitor
After reviewing the footage again, including a slow-motion angle from behind the players, the VAR team reportedly decided that Makkelie’s original penalty decision was correct. In its assessment, the contact between Ernst and Meerdink did not provide a clear reason for VAR to intervene and recommend an on-field review.
The key issue is not simply whether viewers can debate the severity of the contact. VAR is generally intended to correct clear and obvious errors, rather than replace a referee’s judgement whenever an incident is open to interpretation. If the referee has a credible view of the action and awards a penalty, the video team should only step in when the evidence strongly supports changing that decision.
According to ESPN, the VAR team acknowledged that it failed to examine the clearest available footage during the match. The broadcaster described the mistake as an error in the VAR centre. That detail points to a breakdown in the review process: the relevant angle was available, but it was not properly considered before the recommendation was made.
Why Camera Angles and Replay Speed Matter
Football incidents can look very different depending on the camera angle, distance and speed of the replay. A view from one side may make contact appear accidental or minimal, while an angle from behind can show how a player’s movement was affected. Slow motion can help identify where contact occurred, but it can also make ordinary physical challenges appear more forceful than they were.
For that reason, a thorough VAR review should consider the most useful angles and return to normal speed when judging the overall impact of a challenge. The referee at the monitor must ultimately make the decision, but the quality of the VAR recommendation depends on the footage selected and the way it is communicated.
In the Feyenoord–AZ incident, the later assessment suggests the original penalty call should have stood. The VAR team’s regret therefore concerns both the choice to intervene and the failure to use the clearest footage before asking Makkelie to review the play.
What the Admission Means for Dutch Football
Public acknowledgement of a VAR error can help explain how a decision was reached, but it also raises questions about consistency and accountability. Supporters want to know that comparable incidents are judged in a comparable way, while players and coaches need confidence that the technology is being applied according to a clear standard.
The incident also illustrates why a referee’s on-field decision should not be treated as automatically less reliable than a video review. VAR can provide extra information, but it is not infallible. When the evidence is inconclusive or does not clearly contradict the referee’s view, allowing the original call to stand may be the more appropriate course.
For AZ, the review offers confirmation that the penalty decision was mishandled, although it cannot restore the opportunity lost during the match. Feyenoord, meanwhile, retain their 2-0 victory. The result is settled, but the debate over the incident is likely to continue as officials assess how the review process can be improved.
Match Prediction and What Comes Next
Attention will now turn to the teams’ upcoming fixtures, with Feyenoord scheduled to face opponents in the Champions League and AZ set for Europa League action. The disputed call could add extra scrutiny to Feyenoord’s next performance, while AZ will be keen to respond on the pitch rather than dwell on the decision.
Any football prediction for their next matches should account for more than this single incident. Recent form, squad availability, tactical matchups and the demands of competing in Europe are all likely to matter more than a VAR controversy once the teams return to action. Still, the episode may sharpen focus on discipline in the penalty area and on how both sides handle pressure in closely contested moments.
The broader lesson is clear: technology can assist referees, but it cannot guarantee perfect decisions. Reliable VAR depends on careful review, the right camera angles and a consistent threshold for intervention. In this case, the officials’ admission suggests that Makkelie’s initial judgement should have remained in place—and that the most important correction may be improving the process before the next contentious call arrives.
