A VAR-Y BAD SITUATION

The Premier League returned this week with two full slates of fixtures spread across both midweek and the weekend. With the return of the self-proclaimed "greatest league in the world," you might expect ample topics of discussion. Yet again, instead of focusing on the relative successes or failures of the 22 players paid to play the game, the spotlight is on the few paid to officiate it.

At this point, saying it's been a lousy week for Premier League officiating feels redundant. That statement could apply to almost every match week. As always, an unfit for purpose VAR system is at the heart of the controversy.

DJ's Basketball Graffiti Black Athletic Shoes

Buy Now

This week, VAR was involved in several high-profile decisions—and, once again, somehow managed to get all of them wrong. A fiery Merseyside Derby saw Liverpool limp one step closer to the title. Still, post-match discussions were dominated not by tactics or goals but by VAR’s decision to show James Tarkowski a yellow rather than a red for a crunching challenge on Luis Díaz. Arguments around the challenge continue and may not be a straightforward call. 

However, the PGMOL’s post-match admission that Tarkowski should have been sent off makes the situation even more baffling. How can trained officials, equipped with monitors, replays, and multiple angles, come to a decision that their own governing body deems objectively incorrect less than 12 hours later?

The following night’s Chelsea vs. Tottenham match didn’t fare any better, marred as it was by two lengthy VAR reviews. The first VAR review ended with Moisés Caicedo’s fine strike being disallowed for offside. This decision seemed relatively routine, with it appearing pretty "clear and obvious"—to borrow VAR’s terminology—that a Chelsea player in the buildup was offside. Yet VAR still took an age to reach this conclusion.

Not as long, however, as the six-minute check that followed later in the game. This time to judge that Pape Sarr had committed a foul in the buildup to what would have been Tottenham’s equalizer. On balance, most observers would agree it was probably a foul. But if it took six minutes to determine, how can it be classified as a "clear and obvious" error worthy of overturning the on-field call?

The inconsistency raised even more eyebrows: minutes earlier, Sarr had gone down in the Chelsea box under what looked like clear contact. No VAR review was deemed necessary. Tottenham fans quickly pointed out that two near-identical situations—contact on a player by a defender—were dealt with in entirely different ways.

The weekend fixtures were no better. Everton awarded a penalty against Arsenal for a foul that appeared to have taken place outside the box. Tottenham, once again, had a goal ruled out for offside after a nearly five-minute review. And once again, the VAR footage looked anything but conclusive.

DJ's Soccer Unisex Tank Top

Buy Now

VAR was introduced to the Premier League with the promise of improving decision-making. Players were told controversies would fade, consistency would improve, and the perception that specific teams benefit more than others would disappear.

By any metric, it has failed in all these objectives.

Controversies have never been more heightened. Inconsistencies are more glaring. And the overall standard of officiating appears to have worsened, as on-field referees increasingly defer to a VAR system that seems reluctant to correct them.

The central flaw in VAR is its reliance on overturning only 'clear' errors. This standard, which is supposed to guide VAR interventions, creates significant issues. First, fans can rewatch an incident and see an error—yet VAR refuses to intervene to correct this error because it doesn't deem it sufficiently erroneous. Confused? So are all of us. Let's delve deeper into what 'clear and obvious' means in the context of VAR...

Second, is the subjective nature of the phrase itself. Clear to whom? Is contact when the referee saw none "clear and obvious"? Is a foul one centimeter inside the box, when the referee thought it was outside, worthy of intervention?

The truth is, “clear and obvious” seems to mean whatever the VAR official wants it to tell at that particular moment. This opened the door to inconsistency and, inevitably, accusations that some teams are favored.

The result? A worse product, with fans, especially those in the stadiums, who often have no idea why an incident is being reviewed and feel increasingly disconnected. 

The biggest crime VAR has committed is stealing that fleeting, euphoric moment when the ball hits the net. That surge of joy, the reason fans spend hundreds of pounds traveling the country, has been replaced by muted cheers and nervous glances—waiting to see if some joyless official in Stockley Park will chalk it off. The disappointment is shared, and it's a feeling that's becoming all too familiar.

This loss might be tolerable if VAR were achieving its goals. But it isn’t. Until something fundamentally changes, we’ll keep having the same tired conversation week after week.