VAR official denies intentional hand gesture in match controversy

A video assistant referee at the centre of a growing storm has insisted a hand gesture caught on camera during a top-flight match was nothing more than an involuntary, subconscious twitch — and that he had no awareness of making it at all.

Shaun Evans, a VAR official with seven years of experience in professional football officiating, released a statement on Tuesday denying that the gesture, which was picked up by a broadcast camera inside the video review hub at approximately the 67th minute of Saturday’s match, carried any deliberate meaning whatsoever.

What Evans actually said

In his statement, Evans was unequivocal. He said he did not “intentionally” make the gesture “to communicate a message, affiliation, game or belief of any kind” and described it as “an involuntary, subconscious twitch” that he was “completely unaware” of until the footage circulated on social media late Saturday night.

The clip had racked up over 2.3 million views across X and TikTok combined by Sunday morning. That’s a significant level of exposure for something Evans says he didn’t even know he was doing.

The governing body’s response

The sport’s officiating body confirmed it launched a formal review within 48 hours of the footage emerging. A spokesperson said the organisation takes “all concerns regarding the conduct and impartiality of match officials extremely seriously” and that Evans had been stood down from his next two scheduled assignments while the review is ongoing.

It’s worth being clear about what that means in practice: Evans isn’t suspended. He’s been given what officials describe as “administrative leave pending inquiry completion,” which is standard procedure in cases like this.

Still, the optics aren’t great.

Social media pressure and public reaction

The footage spread quickly because the gesture — a brief, upward flick of the right hand’s index and middle fingers — coincided almost exactly with a controversial offside call that disallowed a goal for the visiting side. Pure coincidence, Evans says. But fans of the affected club weren’t buying it, and the hashtag #VARGate had trended nationally for roughly six hours before dropping off Sunday evening.

Three former referees contacted by this outlet declined to comment specifically on Evans’s case but broadly agreed that unconscious physical habits are not uncommon in high-pressure environments. One said officials sometimes develop repetitive motor behaviours during long, intense review sessions without realising it.

What happens next

The review is expected to conclude within 14 days. If investigators find no evidence of intentional communication or bias, Evans would likely return to duties ahead of the final six weeks of the season. If they find otherwise, the consequences could include a formal ban and a referral to disciplinary proceedings that carry sanctions of up to two years.

Evans, through his representative, has said he welcomes the review and is confident it will confirm his account. Whether that confidence turns out to be well-placed remains to be seen.