Arsenal’s Eberechi Eze penalty overturned at Atletico: UEFA explains VAR call

UEFA says Atletico’s David Hancko made no foul when Eberechi Eze went down, so VAR advised Danny Makkelie to overturn Arsenal’s late penalty. The semi-final finishes 1-1.

Arsenal left Atletico Madrid frustrated after a late penalty claim involving Eberechi Eze was overturned by VAR.

Eze, introduced as a substitute, was initially awarded a spot-kick after going down under a challenge from Atletico defender David Hancko with just over 10 minutes left in the Champions League semi-final first leg.. The moment briefly tipped the game’s balance, especially with Arsenal looking for a late foothold after the match had settled into a tense rhythm.

But once the incident was referred to the video assistant referee, the process that now defines elite European games took over.. VAR intervened to prompt referee Danny Makkelie to review the challenge on his on-pitch monitor.. After examining multiple replays, Makkelie ruled out the penalty, sending both squads back into open play with the scoreline still level.

UEFA later moved to clarify why the decision went against Arsenal. In a brief statement, the governing body said that “Atleti player, No 17, did not commit a foul on the opponent.” The reference was to Hancko, the defender involved in the collision that led to Eze’s claim.

UEFA also reiterated the standard it uses for VAR interventions.. When the technology was introduced, the statement said VAR checks “all match-changing situations but only intervene for clear and obvious mistakes.” That phrasing matters because it frames the ruling not as a difference of interpretation, but as whether the referee should be certain the original call was wrong.

Arsenal coach Mikel Arteta did not hide his reaction.. The manager criticized the outcome, describing it as “completely unacceptable,” a rare kind of public frustration that usually signals the match’s emotional stakes got under the skin of the technical staff.. The result, though, held: Atletico and Arsenal finished 1-1, setting up a crucial second leg next Tuesday.

For supporters, the significance is immediate.. A penalty in the semi-final, even late in a match, can swing more than just the score—it can reshape tactics for both sides in the second leg.. Arsenal now head to the return with a tie that feels tighter because the clearest late chance was taken away after review, while Atletico get to defend a draw with momentum intact.

The ruling also underlines how VAR has evolved into a tension point between teams.. Even when stadium cameras capture contact, football’s laws require a foul that is judged by timing, intent, and the exact nature of contact.. In this case, UEFA’s wording suggests the contact was not enough to qualify as a foul under their threshold for intervention.

Looking ahead, the second leg may be influenced by the psychological aftershocks of the decision.. Arsenal are likely to prepare for more conservative refereeing decisions in similar areas, while Atletico may feel more confident about how they position themselves in challenges late in games.. Either way, UEFA’s explanation adds a layer to the debate: the dispute is no longer only about what officials saw, but about the standard UEFA says must be met before VAR overturns a call.