Referees' Performances | 2025/26

[Saddleworth2]

The entire decision to ignore the laws at set plays isn't just 1 particularly easygoing referee ignoring it while the others played to the rules, nor was the decision to pull up the foul at the weekend down to a particularly strict referee as is evidenced by the other similar incidents in games they've referee'd in the last 2 seasons. All referees have different personalities and some are fussier than others, some easier to con with a dive, etc but the decision to ignore holding for the past two seasons by all referees in all games means this is the standard that they've been refereeing to and players have become accustomed to, adjusting tactics accordingly. To then choose the one time they apply the laws correctly in regard to 1 possible foul, while simultaneously ignoring the multiple fouls occurring before the goalkeeper is even touched, in the dying minutes of a game at the arse end of the season to rule out a goal that in all likelihood has now decided the league winners and the final relegated team is baffling beyond belief

That is very well articulated and so true. It is very telling that not one of the 'expert' pundits on TV or in the press has made a similar logical observation. Instead they have invented ever tenuous explanations as to why the decision was 'correct' and 'appropriate'. There is an industry wide omerta regarding what is being inflicted across top level football.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I actually got it wrong, impeding the progress of a player is an indirect freekick but holding a player, I.e. what Trossard, Rice, Saliba, Gabriel and Pablo were doing is an indirect freekick offence so if the only offence was Trossard holding Pablo, who then couldn't get his header off cleanly, then it would be a penalty.

I dont think they need to change the laws at all, just apply the rules as they are already written. It's in there in plain black and white;

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)

holds an opponent

impedes an opponent with contact

bites or spits at someone on the team lists or a match official

throws an object at the ball, an opponent or a match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object"

I dont think asking referees to apply the Laws as they're written should be that controversial really, however, if they're going to use a 'loose' interpretation of the laws then they should use that same interpretation throughout the entire season.

The entire decision to ignore the laws at set plays isn't just 1 particularly easygoing referee ignoring it while the others played to the rules, nor was the decision to pull up the foul at the weekend down to a particularly strict referee as is evidenced by the other similar incidents in games they've referee'd in the last 2 seasons. All referees have different personalities and some are fussier than others, some easier to con with a dive, etc but the decision to ignore holding for the past two seasons by all referees in all games means this is the standard that they've been refereeing to and players have become accustomed to, adjusting tactics accordingly. To then choose the one time they apply the laws correctly in regard to 1 possible foul, while simultaneously ignoring the multiple fouls occurring before the goalkeeper is even touched, in the dying minutes of a game at the arse end of the season to rule out a goal that in all likelihood has now decided the league winners and the final relegated team is baffling beyond belief.
I genuinely believe that if this scenario happened in Italy fans of all clubs over here, Arsenal fans included, would be pretty convinced that it was just another Calciopoli scandal waiting to be broken.

Match Officials Mic'd Up: The fascinating debate VAR had for West Ham's disallowed goal against Arsenal

Listen in on the audio from VAR during the huge moment between West Ham and Arsenal on Sunday in the Premier League.

www.skysports.com

Seems the VAR basically left it for Kavanagh to decide and he didn’t think there was enough in the Trossard hold for it to be a free kick and deemed the foul on Raya happens before the Rice hold.

 

[Gordyola]

Then what you do is simply state that whoever is in charge in the VAR hut speaks only to the match referee. Besides, Brud doesn't say whether that's the norm or whether that was one incident in one match so you can't really derive anything from that. Just like these comments. it's just one man's opinion, doesn't mean he's right.

According to the IFAB protocol only VAR by pressing a button speaks to the ref if VAR is busy then Ass VAR takes over communication So what is he talking about?

IMHO VAR should suggest an onfield review only no chatting to the ref just show him the incident and leave to them to decide, with no interference the Ref can ask for different angles and repeats no slow motion or freeze frame and only one way communication

• The VAR is connected to the communication system being used by the match officials and can hear everything they say; the VAR can only speak to the referee by pushing a button (to avoid the referee being distracted by conversations in the VOR)
• If the VAR is busy with a ‘check’ or a ‘review’, the AVAR may speak to the referee especially if the game needs to be stopped or to ensure play does not restart

 

[Gordyola]

Match Officials Mic'd Up: The fascinating debate VAR had for West Ham's disallowed goal against Arsenal

Listen in on the audio from VAR during the huge moment between West Ham and Arsenal on Sunday in the Premier League.

www.skysports.com

Seems the VAR basically left it for Kavanagh to decide and he didn’t think there was enough in the Trossard hold for it to be a free kick and deemed the foul on Raya happens before the Rice hold.

At first they seem convinced to me that there wasn’t much problem with the “foul” on GK until they sent him to the monitor and told him there’s a foul on Raya convinced him to award it
Surely they should have discussed how this had been the normal this season they really are a thinks bunch of wankers

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

At first they seem convinced to me that there wasn’t much problem with the “foul” on GK until they sent him to the monitor and told him there’s a foul on Raya convinced him to award it
Surely they should have discussed how this had been the normal this season they really are a thinks bunch of wankers

I’m not sure they were convinced it was truly a clear and obvious error. One angle convinced them.

 

[homerdog]

VAR actually sounded quite reasonable when listening back to their comms. However, ref was very quick to disregard everything else they were saying...

Yep, the referee was not interested in the initial foul by Trossard, he dismissed it in a very arrogant manner.
Webb saying that the right decision was reached is also incredibly arrogant, as he isn't the arbiter of what is and isn't the correct decision - we've all got our own eyes and can see when the cunts in PiGMOL are trying to gaslight us:

AVAR: You've got Declan Rice and you've got Trossard.

REF: I don't know what you're trying to show me, give me a clue.

VAR: Trossard on Pablo. Just if you look at Trossard on Pablo. Give me a better angle on that.

VAR: I'll get you a better angle.

REF: I don't think there's much in that at all, I'm happy with that.

VAR: Yeah, OK.

REF: That's nothing.

He dismissed Trossard's foul out of hand in a few seconds!

 

[danielwood5]

Match Officials Mic'd Up: The fascinating debate VAR had for West Ham's disallowed goal against Arsenal

Listen in on the audio from VAR during the huge moment between West Ham and Arsenal on Sunday in the Premier League.

www.skysports.com

Seems the VAR basically left it for Kavanagh to decide and he didn’t think there was enough in the Trossard hold for it to be a free kick and deemed the foul on Raya happens before the Rice hold.

Yeah, nothing in that transcript covers the referee or VAR team in glory, apart from possibly the assistant VAR who's the only one that mentions the foul by Trossard which the other two ignore, and they all get the sequence of events mixed up.
There's absolutely no reasoning in their discussion there about why this particular incident was more in need of a forensic review compared to 30+ of Arsenal's goals this season.
It just makes you realise that if Howard Webb is coming out and saying this decision was spot on and the VAR intervention was correct then by that definition around 80+ goals over the last 2 years have been awarded incorrectly.

 

[Ajm1985]

Match Officials Mic'd Up: The fascinating debate VAR had for West Ham's disallowed goal against Arsenal

Listen in on the audio from VAR during the huge moment between West Ham and Arsenal on Sunday in the Premier League.

www.skysports.com

Seems the VAR basically left it for Kavanagh to decide and he didn’t think there was enough in the Trossard hold for it to be a free kick and deemed the foul on Raya happens before the Rice hold.

They didn't really give Kavanagh a decent angle on Trossard's to be honest. Listening to the VARs for that was surprisingly good - there was definitely one voice that made the points many have made about the multiple fouls going on. Don't agree with allowing all that shite all season though, just horrid.

The VAR for the Fernandes handball in the Everton game was shocking though, just bleating that it was accidental, when that doesn't matter.

 

[Ajm1985]

Yep, the referee was not interested in the initial foul by Trossard, he dismissed it in a very arrogant manner.
Webb saying that the right decision was reached is also incredibly arrogant, as he isn't the arbiter of what is and isn't the correct decision - we've all got our own eyes and can see when the cunts in PiGMOL are trying to gaslight us:

AVAR: You've got Declan Rice and you've got Trossard.

REF: I don't know what you're trying to show me, give me a clue.

VAR: Trossard on Pablo. Just if you look at Trossard on Pablo. Give me a better angle on that.

VAR: I'll get you a better angle.

REF: I don't think there's much in that at all, I'm happy with that.

VAR: Yeah, OK.

REF: That's nothing.

He dismissed Trossard's foul out of hand in a few seconds!

Yeah that was poor but they also didn't give a decent angle at all

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

Why didn’t VAR look at a wide angle and see where Pablo started his run and how Trossard was holding him and pushing into Raya. Don’t look at the one second before Raya dropped the ball look at the couple before. Interesting that he felt Trossard’s actions were ok and Rice was just dismissed. No clear and obvious error and I actually think VAR didn’t want to make a decision either way so sent the ref to the screen.

We now also know accidental hand ball in the area is ok when that law or the one saying it had to be deliberate is no longer the case.

As for the Barry goal his movement towards Guehi was ok because he didn’t get close enough. Odd how every other time a player moves towards the ball the flag goes up and it’s offside.

Shows how VAR can be manipulated to suit.

 

[GeorgeR]

Yeah that was poor but they also didn't give a decent angle at all

Agreed. They showed the ref hardly any of Trossard’s involvement so not surprised the ref didn’t think too much of it. Trossard’s action started much earlier than the clip showed

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Match Officials Mic'd Up: The fascinating debate VAR had for West Ham's disallowed goal against Arsenal

Listen in on the audio from VAR during the huge moment between West Ham and Arsenal on Sunday in the Premier League.

www.skysports.com

Seems the VAR basically left it for Kavanagh to decide and he didn’t think there was enough in the Trossard hold for it to be a free kick and deemed the foul on Raya happens before the Rice hold.

Rice is holding the guy all the way in he would have rose and nodded it unimpeded

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Why didn’t VAR look at a wide angle and see where Pablo started his run and how Trossard was holding him and pushing into Raya. Don’t look at the one second before Raya dropped the ball look at the couple before. Interesting that he felt Trossard’s actions were ok and Rice was just dismissed. No clear and obvious error and I actually think VAR didn’t want to make a decision either way so sent the ref to the screen.

We now also know accidental hand ball in the area is ok when that law or the one saying it had to be deliberate is no longer the case.

As for the Barry goal his movement towards Guehi was ok because he didn’t get close enough. Odd how every other time a player moves towards the ball the flag goes up and it’s offside.

Shows how VAR can be manipulated to suit.

I watched the saints Wigan rugby game this weekend. There was a yellow card incident and the video ref called for about 8 angles. “Close in. Reverse. Now the wide angle please”. Football is a shambles

 

[surprisedbygrass]

That is very well articulated and so true. It is very telling that not one of the 'expert' pundits on TV or in the press has made a similar logical observation. Instead they have invented ever tenuous explanations as to why the decision was 'correct' and 'appropriate'. There is an industry wide omerta regarding what is being inflicted across top level football.

This .The football media UK is not known for calm , insightful or critical thinking . It functions solely with the aim of ramping up the emotions week on week in a rinse and repeat cycle . It rolls out pundits by the shedload with their opinions , but there's no depth or context . It's like watching Punch and Judy , predictable responses week after week ..


If isn't interested in analysing or investigating issues that might call the product into question whether it's ticket prices , player burnout , American owners , quality of referees ....nothing that could taint the spectacle .

In summary it doesn't want us to think , just to react .

 

[No One Understands]

Webb has single handedly destroyed the potential for VAR since he was brought on. It's become subjective when it should be objective.

In the beginning there were growing pains, but it was correcting some important missed calls.

Now it just feels like teams get shafted for the red cartel, by putting the balance back in the incompetent refs hands. Rather than use the technology correctly, they ignore it, or use to justify incorrect decisions.

The whole farce of the ref going to a pitch side monitor while fans, managers, and players stare them down is ridiculous. The monitor should be in a blacked out sound proof booth to reduce the pressure on a decision. ALL angles should be shown. He should control the playback in the booth, not someone somewhere else. They can help guide like England did with kavanaugh, but seems silly if they can't forward and advance the tape themselves.

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

The assistant VAR is the one creating doubt. The other two are fairly quick to close it down.

They need to sort these corner issues out. It’s just absolute shite to watch.

 

[jrb]

Arsenal v West Ham disallowed goal: Referee made right decision - Howard Webb

Disallowing West Ham's last-ditch equaliser against Arsenal on Sunday was the right decision, referees' chief Howard Webb says.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[halfcenturyup]

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 ....

There you go.

A few things stand out to me from the audio and Webb's explanations.

First, the VAR did a pretty good job of analysing the situation. They identified Pablo's arm across Raya which, I assume, most people think was a foul. And they rightly identified the actions of Trossard impeding Pablo before and during the Raya incident. But I wasn't sure from the video if the VAR properly explained the significance of Trossard's offence to the referee and if that, as a result, was the reason he dismissed it out of hand ("nothing in that"). Did VAR not show video of Trossard's actions before the arm? I find it hard to believe that anyone could deny Trossard significantly affected Pablo's ability to challenge. To me, it would have been better to point out to the referee why Trissard's offence was also "impactful" because no-one can say "clear and obvious"ly that he would have illegally challenged Raya if he himself wasn't being illegally challenged. And that illegal challenge was the first offence and so should take precedence.

Second, Webb concentrated on the "clear and obvious" offence on Raya and clearly explained why it was a foul. No problem thete. But when asked about Trossard he went rambling on about discussing what stakeholders want from the game. He didn't answer the question at all. He is a ****, not an idiot and so I imagine he knows it was a wrong decision and was covering it up with a smokescreen.

Nothing in that explained to me at all why Trossard's offence didn't impact the play. Plenty of penalties have been given this season for holding when the attacker is in the area to challenge for the ball or, if they haven't been given, the KMIP concluded they should have been. Same with this one. Disallow the goal but penalty to WHU is still my assessment. And I think Webb agrees but can't say it without bringing the whole mess down.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

The assistant VAR is the one creating doubt. The other two are fairly quick to close it down.

They need to sort these corner issues out. It’s just absolute shite to watch.

The assistant VAR is correctly raising doubt. There are at least 2 Arsenal fouls that Darren England wanted to ignore and it felt like Kavenaugh just fell in line with want England wanted.

 

[bluesteve1964]

6