Referees' Performances | 2025/26

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Nobody knows for sure but the question needs to be asked. You're never going to be likely to prove anything one way or another, the best you'll probably get is a statement on a quiet evening out of season when nobody is listening, stating that they're no longer going to allow the VAR team to hear the commentary. As it stands there's nothing to stop them listening to it on a TV or radio in the background.

They’ve said that VAR can’t hear the commentary. People don’t believe it without evidence, just on feeling.

Even if those people were allowed to watch a VAR team do their job in Stockley Park, they’d still find some angle to suggest it’s rigged.

Social media has changed how people debate from reasoned logic to feelings based arguments.

 

[Gordyola]

Nobody knows for sure but the question needs to be asked. You're never going to be likely to prove anything one way or another, the best you'll probably get is a statement on a quiet evening out of season when nobody is listening, stating that they're no longer going to allow the VAR team to hear the commentary. As it stands there's nothing to stop them listening to it on a TV or radio in the background.

If they are listening to any outside broadcast then they are breaking IFAB VAR protocol rules which would mean sanction by FIFA

Video Assistant Referee (VAR) protocol | IFAB

www.theifab.com

 

[mattcity5]

From Darren McCann comments on MoTD the other fouls weren't "significant" clearly briefed to use the term so that had anticipated the point raised by Shay Given when he asked why the other fouls weren't considered Seems that they make it up as they go along, there is no mention of "significant" in the laws

The thing I'd say to this, is why are they making these fouls if they're not significant?

Why is Rice rugby tacking two players, is he doesn't think it might matter?

All fouls are significant.

Are they saying that if somebody pulls that Rice move, off the ball in midfield during open play, they'll ignore it as it isn't "significant"?

It's nonsense.

 

[coolcity]

If they are listening to any outside broadcast then they are breaking IFAB VAR protocol rules which would mean sanction by FIFA

Video Assistant Referee (VAR) protocol | IFAB

www.theifab.com

But who's to know? Not considering every foul is breaking the rules but they're happy to do that openly on live TV with millions watching, so who knows what they're doing behind the scenes with nobody looking?

 

[coolcity]

They’ve said that VAR can’t hear the commentary. People don’t believe it without evidence, just on feeling.

Even if those people were allowed to watch a VAR team do their job in Stockley Park, they’d still find some angle to suggest it’s rigged.

Social media has changed how people debate from reasoned logic to feelings based arguments.

There's plenty of reasoned logic. Giving a decision on one foul and disregarding the rest is a logical argument, not a feeling, and let's be honest, it's not a one-off incident. The only difference these days is there are cameras everywhere so you're going to get a lot more debate, but there are countless people, neutrals, debating (and disagreeing with) the West Ham decision, not just City and West Ham fans.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

There's plenty of reasoned logic. Giving a decision on one foul and disregarding the rest is a logical argument, not a feeling, and let's be honest, it's not a one-off incident. The only difference these days is there are cameras everywhere so you're going to get a lot more debate, but there are countless people, neutrals, debating (and disagreeing with) the West Ham decision, not just City and West Ham fans.

Which is fair and why people are still debating it.

I guess it depends on how you define the first foul. Is it holding by players nowhere near the ball or is it the first fouls that directly impacts play?

Then, are there mitigations for how the foul happened, Ie was that player being fouled at the same time to cause the other foul.

Should that be taken into account? The LOTG don’t specify, so it’s down to the subjective decision of the referees involved.

 

[lasereyes]

My office colleague and lifelong West Ham fan summed it up well. "We scored a corner goal that they would have been proud of ... but apparently we are not allowed to do that".

 

[lasereyes]

Which is fair and why people are still debating it.

I guess it depends on how you define the first foul. Is it holding by players nowhere near the ball or is it the first fouls that directly impacts play?

Then, are there mitigations for how the foul happened, Ie was that player being fouled at the same time to cause the other foul.

Should that be taken into account? The LOTG don’t specify, so it’s down to the subjective decision of the referees involved.

On both counts, West Ham should have been awarded a penalty. Or you ignore all the fouls and award a goal. I don't see how in any interpretation the verdict is free kick to Arse.

 

[Marvin.]

Refs have got a very difficult job. Competition has driven teams to contest absolutely every challenge, and throw in. They are very devious and a team will collectively block, grapple en masse so that the ref can not follow what is going on. The game is changing. It's getting out of control. It's not poor refereeing is systematic cheating.

I have not liked VAR, but refereeing the game has become too much for an on-pitch match official. We need retrospective action imo, and yellow cards to break the current cycle of cheating, time-wasting and foul play.

The game used to be more physical and harder than it is now but now players, and coaches are sly and devious.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

On both counts, West Ham should have been awarded a penalty. Or you ignore all the fouls and award a goal. I don't see how in any interpretation the verdict is free kick to Arse.

The refs will say that the ball’s first contact was with Ray’s gloves and that the arm across his body and grabbing his left arm stopped him catching the ball cleanly, hence it being interpreted as the first foul.

I guess we’ll find out for sure later when the audio is released.

 

[lasereyes]

Just scrap VAR, gets rid of all this bollocks. It hasn't improved anything and we managed for over 100 years without it.

Question for you. What would have happened in the 2017/18 CL tie vs Scousers if there had been VAR? I was convinced at the time that we would have won (Their 1st goal at Anfield offside, we get a penalty on Robertson, Jesus goal stands; Sane goal at Etihad stands, Firmino sent off for second yellow offence on KDB). But I am actually not sure anymore.

 

[lasereyes]

The refs will say that the ball’s first contact was with Ray’s gloves and that the arm across his body and grabbing his left arm stopped him catching the ball cleanly, hence it being interpreted as the first foul.

I guess we’ll find out for sure later when the audio is released.

They will say that -- but that's asking us to ignore our lying eyes isnt it? The Trossard bear hugging of Pablo pretty obviously caused his arm to flail into Raya as he tried to escape. It very obviously happened before and it directly caused the foul on Raya

 

[mattcity5]

On both counts, West Ham should have been awarded a penalty. Or you ignore all the fouls and award a goal. I don't see how in any interpretation the verdict is free kick to Arse.

They just looked at where the ball goes.

Sorry for mentioning politics/Trump etc as an analogy here, but especially via social media these days we see loads of disinformation out there.

Trump publishes so much nonsense, and everyone knows it's nonsense, but because there's so much of it it becomes harder to spot the lies that matter.

This is Arsenal setpieces all over. Loads of fouls all over the place, too many for the refs to key tabs on, and in trying spot something vital they miss absolutely everything else that's going on.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

They will say that -- but that's asking us to ignore our lying eyes isnt it? The Trossard bear hugging of Pablo pretty obviously caused his arm to flail into Raya as he tried to escape. It very obviously happened before and it directly caused the foul on Raya

This is why I mentioned mitigation and whether it’s included in the LOTG or not.

I agree that Trossard’s hold influences Pablo. However, can a foul be ignored because of mitigation? Both fouls are simultaneous, so had Pablo headed over whilst being held, then should that have been a penalty?

The issue is that the LOTG aren’t written for forensic microscopic scrutiny.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I’ll listen more when there’s actual evidence, rather than “they must be able to maybe hear it if they want.”

Neville parrots what the VAR are saying.

That's my feeling too, as then he appears to know.

I think it's been stated that VAR do not hear commentary. If they did, I would expect more clubs to have issues.

 

[TonyBookEnd]

Refs have got a very difficult job. Competition has driven teams to contest absolutely every challenge, and throw in. They are very devious and a team will collectively block, grapple en masse so that the ref can not follow what is going on. The game is changing. It's getting out of control. It's not poor refereeing is systematic cheating.

I have not liked VAR, but refereeing the game has become too much for an on-pitch match official. We need retrospective action imo, and yellow cards to break the current cycle of cheating, time-wasting and foul play.

The game used to be more physical and harder than it is now but now players, and coaches are sly and devious.

Advancement of analytics and percentages?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

That's my feeling too, as then he appears to know.

I think it's been stated that VAR do not hear commentary. If they did, I would expect more clubs to have issues.

That’s a good point too. Forest would have gone apoplectic had they had evidence that Neville was telling VAR what to do. He’s already banned from their ground.

 

[the blue panther]

The game is supposed to be played by "gentlemen" - well, till recently. The first piece of identifiable ungentlemanly conduct should have been penalised - and if it was on a West Ham player, should the "goal" have then stood - because you can't penalise a goal?

Corners have descended into a nightmare where the cheats try to prosper, often with a degree of success.

Referees are pretty much as shit as they were 60 years ago when I started watching. Now, they get a 2nd chance to be just as shit operating VAR. Does it even out over a season?

 

[Gordyola]

But who's to know? Not considering every foul is breaking the rules but they're happy to do that openly on live TV with millions watching, so who knows what they're doing behind the scenes with nobody looking?

Why would they bothered what Chuckle 1 or any other pundits is saying

 

[Chris in London]

Why would they bothered what Chuckle 1 or any other pundits is saying

I have to say, the chances that neville is simply repeating the issues being discussed at Stocksley Park seem infinitely more likely than the chances that they are waiting to see what the Great Gary has to say about the matter before making the decision.

What matters is that nobody seems to be making the point that the decision to award the goal was not clearly and obviously wrong. In other words, for one game only, the threshold at which VAR interventions are permissible was lowered considerably.

Why is nobody, not the BBC, not Sky Sports, not Football 365, talking about that?

Putting the same point a different way, during game 36 of a 38 game season, they decided to change the rules in a way that benefits two of the teams that were instrumental in creating the Premier League.