Referees' Performances | 2025/26

[IrishBloodEnglishHeart]

So why then do Sky have a direct line into the VAR office to hear what they're saying before everyone else does? What's the purpose and who decided that?

 

[halfcenturyup]

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 all there is.

Pablo was moving towards where the ball was going to be placed. Trossard was trying to stop him from interfering with Raya. Was Pablo trying to interfere with Raya rather than make a genuine attempt to play the ball? Possibly, but you can't penalise possiblies.

Trossard doesn't just stand his ground, which he would be entitled to do. He hugs Pablo, holds and pushes him and moves with him into the ball-playing area and, critically, Pablo is looking where the ball is coming from, Trossard is just looking at Pablo. That should be an offence whether it directly affects the play or not but this season, at least, such offences have been let go if they don't directly affect the play.

In this case, Trossard's actions do directly affect the play because they impede Pablo's ability to challenge for the ball. Would Pablo have impeded Raya if Trossard (and Gabriel for that matter) hadn't impeded him? Possibly but, again, you can't penalise possiblies.

So the first offence directly affecting play was Trossard on Pablo before Pablo impeded Raya. VAR could have called it six of one half a dozen of the other or, more properly, disallowed the goal for interfering with Raya but giving a penalty for the earlier offence on Pablo.

The rest is bullshit.

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

Bloody conspiracy theorists.

Edit: they will just say the referee didn't see it, so it wasn't a subjective decision, it was a matter of fact.

 

[Chris in London]

Bloody conspiracy theorists.

Edit: they will just say the referee didn't see it, so it wasn't a subjective decision, it was a matter of fact.

It has to be a clear and obvious error or "serious missed incident." (Law 5 IFAB rules).

This was neither.

 

[levets]

The International Football Association Board (Ifab) believes fans should be informed of decisions, but not hear them being made live.

"I categorically say no, they shouldn't," Ifab secretary and chief executive Lukas Brud told BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast's Rick Edwards.

"I was allowed to observe and see communication between match officials during a review and it is quite a chaotic situation, not in a negative sense but there's many people talking at the same time and I think it would be counterproductive for anyone to listen to all those voices talking to each other."

"Then you have the VAR and the assistant VAR, the replay operators, the referee and maybe even the assistant referees and fourth official, so all of a sudden it becomes quite a chaotic experience. We have given the green light to test the announcement of decisions to bring a little more transparency to decision making, but we are not prepared at this point to open up communication live to the audience."

There have also been calls for football to follow other sports such as rugby and cricket in how they communicate on field decisions to fans, but Brud feels direct comparisons are unrealistic.

"They are different sports with different set ups," he added. "We cannot compare by simply saying it is the same. In football, processes are slightly different.

"Football is different because everyone is putting a magnifying glass on every decision and every single word would then be analysed in the media and it would create a very unsafe environment for referees."

Absolute fucking nonsense again

 

[cheekybids]

An argument based on feeling, rather than one with any evidence though.

I clearly stated it was my feeling with the words “I think” but there is a thing called incentive caused bias.

It is a subconscious cognitive pattern where your judgment and decision-making are skewed by the potential for personal reward or the fear of a sanction. Because the brain operates on a principle of efficiency, it often uses these motivational "shortcuts" to simplify complex choices, often without you realising that your ethics or logic have been compromised.

 

[Allnightlong]

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

Maybe he is mouth piece for sky executives on the day and he is repeating what they want as they can’t call Stockley park. PL is all for sky viewing figures.
But could be bollox what I am saying!!

 

[axlgod]

So why then do Sky have a direct line into the VAR office to hear what they're saying before everyone else does? What's the purpose and who decided that?

That’s a really good point.
Why do the comms have a feed from var?
imo they shouldn’t and they can find out the decision when everybody else does.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I clearly stated it was my feeling with the words “I think” but there is a thing called incentive caused bias.

It is a subconscious cognitive pattern where your judgment and decision-making are skewed by the potential for personal reward or the fear of a sanction. Because the brain operates on a principle of efficiency, it often uses these motivational "shortcuts" to simplify complex choices, often without you realising that your ethics or logic have been compromised.

Sure, but shy of having robo-refs, that’s never going to change.

Either that or send it to a random VAR somewhere else in the world in black and white with all semblance of stadium identity removed.

There’s also the refs choosing the “safest” option.

 

[lasereyes]

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.

The fouls are not simultaneous. Pablo's arm action occurs because he is trying to escape Trossard's vice like grip. That much is pretty factual. Going by the precedence principle which was used at Anfield for our chalked off goal then the first offence must be penalized. Did Trossard impede Pablo - check. Was it a foul? I guess people can differ but it is fairly extreme physical action so most neutrals would say yes. So check. Was it before Pavlo impeded Raya - check. Did it interfere with play? Clearly yes as it was responsible for Pablo's actions on Raya - check again.

It requires a pretty lop sided Interpretation of all these events to conclude Arsenal free kick. And after all this how can anyone but gooner fans conclude it was a clear and obvious error?

Does anyone seriously think if the incident was at the other end that it would have been overturned by VAR?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Does anyone seriously think if the incident was at the other end that it would have been overturned by VAR?

What does asking this question ever achieve? It didn’t happen at the other end, so it’s a hypothetical scenario, as was whoever was asking about the Liverpool CL tie.

The answers are emotional ones, not borne out of fact.

 

[danielwood5]

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.

From the audio we've heard in the past, particularly from that Liverpool v Spurs fuck up a couple of seasons ago, there's no way they can hear the commentary. There's too many people in the VAR room and on the pitch talking at once to be able to have the commentary working, nobody would be able to hear it or take in what they're saying.
This is especially true where they're doing the backwards and forwards, different camera angles on the pitchside monitor part of the check.
It's much, much more likely that shitbag Nev can hear the referee and VAR operatives discussing the decision and he aligns his 'opinion' with theirs to legitimise whatever decision they come up with to help protect Sky's Premier League brand.

 

[Blue_eyes]

Var and their decisions can cost clubs literally hundreds of £millions, they can send them on a downward spiral if relegated on the back of a missed/wrongly given foul or the like during an important game.

Not to mention the power to "gift" clubs a better chance of a trophy in a one off game(last years fa cup for example).

Last night during the spud/leeds game they showed the var room with them looking at the penalty incident, so there are cameras present. Incidently craig pawson looked gutted when he realised they HAD to send the ref to the monitor, properly threw himself back in his chair in a most petulant manner.

They should record any audio along with this footage and give the whole lot to the clubs after each game, its too important for it to be so secretive.

This way clubs can get clarity on decisions and approach pigmol if necessary for explanations, which in turn can be reported on in the media.

I believe such scrutiny would shake up the quality and focus of pigmol to get things right instead of "selecting" key outcomes and then hiding behind the privacy they afford themselves and a compliant media sticking up for them.

Even if its as chaotic in there as a previous post claims, the clubs could unpick the audio later to get to the bottom of any controversy and act accordingly.

I no longer attend games, but I still dread every single refs name, and my only hope for a game is that it gets faily reffed and is free from controversy, I end up dissapointed most of the time.

As Im sure millions of fans are too.

 

[Dodge]

Until the Premier League start to see a fall off in international viewing figures there will be no change of direction and set pieces will continue to dominate our game. The international engagement over the disallowed West Ham goal was probably positively viewed by the powers that be with social media awash with opinion, PL trending worldwide, TV debate, media debate off the scale - a marketing teams wet dream.

Set pieces, long throws, VAR controversies & NFL type blocking are here to stay, with Henry's & KDB's assist record about to be broken by set-piece Fernandes, consigning 2 of the greatest players in PL history to the also-rans. Cue wall to wall coverage of THE greatest ever PL "assist" king for years to come. A player who has only 1 more assist from open play than Cherki this season (in far more minutes) and only 3 more than Haaland (who happens to have scored a paltry 26 goals as well).

Dreary Declans deal-ball delivery will be lauded as Messi-like in the future. Hailed as a trendsetting footballing icon in the making, way ahead of his time. Englands finest.

The dinosaur football played when Aguerroooo & Gundo's last day title winning goals were flavour of the month, when times were dominated by mind-numbingly boring flowing football, will be a footnote in history.

Viva VAR and set-piece forever.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

It has to be a clear and obvious error or "serious missed incident." (Law 5 IFAB rules).

This was neither.

Which is the normal procedure for PGMOL - new interpretations per game/ half/ etc being shirt colour dependent, obviously !

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Until the Premier League start to see a fall off in international viewing figures there will be no change of direction and set pieces will continue to dominate our game. The international engagement over the disallowed West Ham goal was probably positively viewed by the powers that be with social media awash with opinion, PL trending worldwide, TV debate, media debate off the scale - a marketing teams wet dream.

Set pieces, long throws, VAR controversies & NFL type blocking are here to stay, with Henry's & KDB's assist record about to be broken by set-piece Fernandes, consigning 2 of the greatest players in PL history to the also-rans. Cue wall to wall coverage of THE greatest ever PL "assist" king for years to come. A player who has only 1 more assist from open play than Cherki this season (in far more minutes) and only 3 more than Haaland (who happens to have scored a paltry 26 goals as well).

Dreary Declans deal-ball delivery will be lauded as Messi-like in the future. Hailed as a trendsetting footballing icon in the making, way ahead of his time. Englands finest.

The dinosaur football played when Aguerroooo & Gundo's last day title winning goals were flavour of the month, when times were dominated by mind-numbingly boring flowing football, will be a footnote in history.

Viva VAR and set-piece forever.

And added to the glorious Arsenal history catalogue !

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

This is all there is.

Pablo was moving towards where the ball was going to be placed. Trossard was trying to stop him from interfering with Raya. Was Pablo trying to interfere with Raya rather than make a genuine attempt to play the ball? Possibly, but you can't penalise possiblies.

Trossard doesn't just stand his ground, which he would be entitled to do. He hugs Pablo, holds and pushes him and moves with him into the ball-playing area and, critically, Pablo is looking where the ball is coming from, Trossard is just looking at Pablo. That should be an offence whether it directly affects the play or not but this season, at least, such offences have been let go if they don't directly affect the play.

In this case, Trossard's actions do directly affect the play because they impede Pablo's ability to challenge for the ball. Would Pablo have impeded Raya if Trossard (and Gabriel for that matter) hadn't impeded him? Possibly but, again, you can't penalise possiblies.

So the first offence directly affecting play was Trossard on Pablo before Pablo impeded Raya. VAR could have called it six of one half a dozen of the other or, more properly, disallowed the goal for interfering with Raya but giving a penalty for the earlier offence on Pablo.

The rest is bullshit.

It is an offence. It’s exactly the same ‘offence’ that Bernie committed at Everton where the only explanation offered, and accepted by all, was that the ball wasn’t in play. The obvious difference with Trossard was that the ball was clearly in play and his foul must have happened prior to the foul on Raya. Therefore, with chronology the most important factor, the only possible outcome the VAR could have come to was no goal, penalty to West Ham.

 

[mattcity5]

Until the Premier League start to see a fall off in international viewing figures there will be no change of direction and set pieces will continue to dominate our game. The international engagement over the disallowed West Ham goal was probably positively viewed by the powers that be with social media awash with opinion, PL trending worldwide, TV debate, media debate off the scale - a marketing teams wet dream.

Set pieces, long throws, VAR controversies & NFL type blocking are here to stay, with Henry's & KDB's assist record about to be broken by set-piece Fernandes, consigning 2 of the greatest players in PL history to the also-rans. Cue wall to wall coverage of THE greatest ever PL "assist" king for years to come. A player who has only 1 more assist from open play than Cherki this season (in far more minutes) and only 3 more than Haaland (who happens to have scored a paltry 26 goals as well).

Dreary Declans deal-ball delivery will be lauded as Messi-like in the future. Hailed as a trendsetting footballing icon in the making, way ahead of his time. Englands finest.

The dinosaur football played when Aguerroooo & Gundo's last day title winning goals were flavour of the month, when times were dominated by mind-numbingly boring flowing football, will be a footnote in history.

Viva VAR and set-piece forever.

Might be wishful thinking on my part, but I reckon they will stop this next season provided that they've got their "new" winner this season. If we somehow win it, then they'll let it all be a free for all again.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It has to be a clear and obvious error or "serious missed incident." (Law 5 IFAB rules).

This was neither.

Of course, but when Webb is explaining it tonight he will be saying the referee didn't see the arm so it was a clear and obvious error. You can put money on it.

Or he says it was a mistake and all hell breaks loose ....

 

[danielwood5]

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.

Which is why VAR doesnt work and definitely, definitely shouldn't have been used in this instance.

The nature of the incident(s) itself, the Laws of the Game and the actual VAR protocol meant this was the worst possible type of incident for VAR to get involved with.
Multiple instances of holding, grappling, diving and shithousery going on at once from both sets of players, timing of the goal in the game, the likely ramifications at either end of the table, the precedence set all season particularly by one of the teams involved in this incident mean this was probably the stupidest VAR intervention of all time.

Let's face it, if the goal was allowed to stand Arsenal fans would be pissed off, the rest of the footballing world would be telling Arsenal fans that they've been doing the same all season so they dont get to whinge when they come a cropper to their own tactics, and the pundits would be telling us it was a great bit of refereeing as he spotted the foul from Trossard which caused Pablo to come into contact with the on rushing keeper who definitely "should have been stronger there" and "should have stood his ground rather than rush into the melee".

This was the kind of decision that the whole "clear and obvious" guidance was written for, instead they've dived in on an incident that's been happening all season for the first time in almost 2 seasons and effectively decided the top and bottom of the table making the Premier League look as much like a sporting competition as WWE.

Also, if Pablo had headed over after being held then it should be a penalty. Contrary to what we've seen the last two seasons, it's an offence to impede the progress of a player without making an attempt to play the ball therefore a foul in the box which under 99% of circumstances is a penalty.