Football Features

    How the 2024-25 Premier League table would look without VAR ‘errors’ after GW4

    By Squawka News

    How the 2024-25 Premier League table would look without VAR 'errors' after GW3

    Published: 18:30, 17 September 2024 | Updated: 11:08, 20 September 2024

    During the 2024/25 Premier League season, we’re asking Squawka followers to vote on each gameweek’s most controversial video assistant referee (VAR) calls.

    The results will form an alternative table so that, by next May, we can see which teams will be cursing VAR (and which will be secretly pleased the Premier League clubs didn’t vote to get rid of it).

    Or maybe it will even reveal that much criticism of VAR is overblown…

    The 2024-25 Premier League table without VAR ‘errors’

    The Professional Game Match Officials Ltd (PGMOL) says that last season more than 100 errors were corrected by VAR.  Still, the Premier League acknowledges much work must be done to improve the perception of VAR. Why else would Wolves’ trigger a vote on whether it should be scrapped in June?

    While VAR will never be perfect, there have been the usual eyebrow-raising interventions — or lack thereof — during the opening four rounds of the 2024/25 fixtures.

    Gameweek four was pretty quiet for game-changing errors, but there were a few red card calls… We’ve put them to our followers on X (formerly Twitter) for their opinions.

    Note: Our table has been compiled on the basis that penalties that should have been awarded would subsequently have been scored. Over the past seven seasons, 78% of Premier League penalties taken have been scored.

    How many VAR ‘errors’ have gone against your team?

    CLUB DECISIONS FOR DECISIONS AGAINST DIFFERENCE
    Man City 2 0 +2
    Newcastle 2 1 +1
    Southampton 1 0 +1
    Wolves 1 0 +1
    Ipswich 0 1 -1
    Bournemouth 0 2 -2
    Chelsea 0 2 -2

    GW4 VAR controversies

    Was Jurrien Timber lucky to avoid red?

    • Match result: Tottenham 0-1 Arsenal
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (68.4%)

    Another Arsenal game, another VAR discussion. There were two red cards to be considered in the North London derby at the weekend. The first was for Jurrien Timber. Just after the half-hour mark Jurrien Timber was booked for challenge on Pedro Porro. The Dutchman got the ball but then made contact with Porro’s leg. Tottenham players weren’t happy with the tackle, sparking a mini brawl.

    Given the lack of force in Timber’s tackle, and the direction of his foot, going down, a red could have been harsh. And that was largely accepted by fans in our poll.

    Should Tottenham have been reduced to 10 men vs Arsenal?

    • Match result: Tottenham 0-1 Arsenal
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (72.3%)

    There was another check for a red card just before half-time, this time for Micky van de Ven. The Tottenham defender went in hard on a challenge on Leandro Trossard in trying to stop an Arsenal attack. There was a quick check but the tackle was deemed reckless rather than serious foul play.

    Should Jean-Philippe Mateta’s first goal vs Leicester have counted?

    • Match result: Crystal Palace 2-2 Leicester
    • VAR says: Goal
    • Squawka poll says: Goal (73.6%)

    This weekend we did see a VAR overturn! It came in Crystal Palace’s game against Leicester in which they came from 2-0 down to secure a 2-2 draw thanks to a brace from Jean-Philippe Mateta. But there have been some discussions surrounding Mateta’s first goal. It came just moments after Leicester had gone 2-0 up but was initially ruled out for offside by the assistant referee. However, VAR got the lines out and the goal was eventually given.

    But depending on what angle was shown, some people — particularly Leicester fans — found it inconclusive. Leicester manager Steve Cooper said: “I really want to see the absolute offside image of the first goal. If it is, no problem, we’ll hold our hands up, but we can’t be calling offsides on suggestions, which is only what we’ve seen at the moment.

    “We need to get that image quickly off the Premier League. If it is, I’ll accept it.”

    Was Robert Sanchez right to avoid double jeopardy?

    • Match result: Bournemouth 0-1 Chelsea
    • VAR says: Penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (75.6%)

    Chelsea stole a 1-0 victory against Bournemouth on Saturday, having largely struggled at the Vitality. They could have been 1-0 down in the first half too, with Evanilson missing a penalty. Evanilson won the penalty himself after being fouled by Robert Sanchez, and there was no question about the spot-kick. However, there were some complaints from Bournemouth’s players that Sanchez was only booked.

    The Spaniard’s foul did essentially fall under the double jeopardy protection. Although he cleaned Evanilson out, Sanchez made a genuine attempt to win the ball, while also making himself big to try and stop the shot.

    Was Jack Stephens right to be sent off vs Man Utd?

    • Match result: Southampton 0-3 Man Utd
    • VAR says: Red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (66.8%)

    Southampton had the chance to go ahead against Man Utd in the first half but missed a penalty — which there were no complaints about. Saints would have deserved the lead too, given how they started. But they eventually fell apart and Man Utd were worth their 3-0 lead. Before the scoreline was completed, Southampton were reduced to 10 men after Jack Stephens saw red for a high challenge on Alejandro Garnacho.

    At first viewing, the red card did look harsh, but replays soon proved it was the right decision. The tackle was high and deemed serious foul play by VAR, who confirmed the on-field decision. There weren’t many complaints.

    GW3 VAR controversies

    Should Arsenal have had a penalty vs Brighton?

    • Match result: Arsenal 1-1 Brighton
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (59.5%)

    This was the biggest game for controversy at the weekend, and the first VAR check was for a penalty potential to Arsenal. It came in the first half as Ben White’s shot hit the arm of Lewis Dunk before going out for a corner. By the law, this one was pretty cut and dry.

    Dunk’s arm was close to his body and he made no movement towards the ball. This was never going to be a penalty in the Premier League, though fan opinion was split a lot closer.

    Declan Rice vs Joel Veltman

    Now this is more of a bonus section, but it’s one worth covering. In the 49th minute, Arsenal were reduced to 10 men as Declan Rice was sent off for his second yellow card. The reasoning didn’t go down well with Arsenal fans, particularly given what took place at the same time — and earlier in the match.

    Rice committed a foul and then nudged the ball away. At the same time, Joel Veltman kicked Rice in a perceived attempt to take a quick free-kick. As Rice was deemed to have delayed the restart, a second yellow card was right by the letter of the law. Of course, as a yellow card, this decision wasn’t to be reviewed by VAR.

    “Disappointed. Didn’t feel it deserved a second yellow card but will learn and be better for it. Proud of the boys regardless & thank you for the amazing support Gunners,” Rice wrote on his Instagram.

    But Arsenal fans felt hard-done-by. Not only was it a slight nudge away, but fans pointed to Joao Pedro escaping a yellow for booting the ball after it had gone out for a throw-in. However, the difference there is in the law. Pedro didn’t technically delay a restart as no Arsenal player was ready to take the throw-in. While Veltman was ready to restart play, though the ball might not have stopped moving.

    Veltman’s kick was checked for a potential red card for serious foul play, but it was quickly brushed away.

    Should Pape Matar Sarr have been sent off?

    • Match result: Newcastle 2-1 Tottenham
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (55.4%)

    There were two potential red card checks in Newcastle’s 2-1 win over Tottenham on Sunday. The first was for Pape Matar Sarr. The midfielder was the first Tottenham player in the book at St James’ Park, for a foul on Lloyd Kelly.

    It was a late challenge but one that was deemed reckless rather than serious foul play. And Sarr was taken off by Ange Postecolgou at half-time, with the Tottenham boss admitting the yellow card played its part.

    “Only because Pape had been booked and like his part of the game, he just really gets stuck into the opposition, and on the flip side, Lloyd Kelly had been booked as well. So I just thought, with Brennan (Johnson) coming on and running at them, I just felt we run over the top of them in the second half,” Postecoglou told reporters when explaining his decision.

    Was James Maddison lucky to avoid red?

    • Match result: Newcastle 2-1 Tottenham
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (53.4%)

    James Maddison was in a tense battle against Bruno Guimaraes at St James’ Park and midway through the second half he went in hard on the Brazilian. Referee Robert Jones gave Maddison a yellow card but it was reviewed for a red. However, VAR deemed that while the challenge was reckless it wasn’t serious foul play and the yellow was upheld.

    GW2 VAR controversies

    Should Bournemouth have secured late win vs Newcastle?

    • Match result: Bournemouth 1-1 Newcastle
    • VAR says: No goal
    • Squawka poll says: Goal (80.5%)

    Bournemouth thought they had won their game against Newcastle late on about Dango Ouattara had put the ball in the back of the net. The on-field decision was a goal, but it was overturned by VAR as they deemed it to be a factual handball by Ouattara. Therefore, an on-field review was not required, and the goal was disallowed.

    However, there was a lot of debate about where on the arm it hit and whether it was clear enough to go against the referee’s initial call.

    Discussing the disallowed goal, Newcastle head coach Eddie Howe said: “A welcome surprise because we weren’t appealing, so I’d be interested to see the replays. We had a VAR decision go against us; this one goes for us.”

    Bournemouth manager Andoni Iraola was less than impressed, telling BBC Sport: “It was so obvious. I think everyone who watches the game would agree. I think the shoulder, it never touches his skin. We have very short sleeves. They say it is factual, show me the facts. I have just seen the video and the fact is it doesn’t touch the arm, it is the shoulder, a clear goal and three points for us.

    “It is something that is not even controversial. It is definitely not something for VAR to intervene. I have nothing against the referee, he gave the goal, they did not give him the chance to see it again. Someone in the VAR, who supposedly is not going to intervene too much they say because they trust the referee.

    “It doesn’t matter I complain now, it is two points less.”

    Should Joelinton have been sent off against Bournemouth?

    • Match result: Bournemouth 1-1 Newcastle
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (84.6%)

    The drama in Bournemouth vs Newcastle wouldn’t end there. Minutes later, Joelinton pulled Neto down to prevent a counter-attack. A cynical challenge on its own, Joelinton was booked for the infringement. However, the Brazilian pulled Neto down by his neck in a tackle that some believe would have been out of place in rugby. But, no change was made to the initial decision and Joelinton stayed on the pitch.

    Should Wolves have been reduced to 10 men?

    • Match result: Wolves 2-6 Chelsea
    • VAR says: No red card
    • Squawka poll says: Red card (57.6%)

    Midway through the second half of Chelsea’s 6-2 win over Wolves, Yerson Mosquera was booked for a challenge on Moises Caicedo. The tackle was over the ball but as Mosquera connected with the top of Caicedo’s foot, a yellow was deemed worthy by the referee. VAR agreed.

    Was Leif Davis’ challenge on Savinho worth a penalty?

    • Match result: Man City 4-1 Ipswich
    • VAR says: Penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (51.1%)

    Man City drew level with Ipswich with Erling Haaland scoring from the penalty spot. Savinho was brought down in the box by Leif Davis, who talked from behind. However, the referee did not initially award the penalty. The VAR recommended an on-field review and deemed there was a clear foul. The referee overturned his original decision and a penalty was awarded.

    Should Savinho have been penalised for challenge on Leif Davis?

    • Match result: Man City 4-1 Ipswich
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: Penalty (80.2%)

    Later in the first half, the roles were reversed. Savinho brought down Davis inside Man City’s area, with referee Sam Allison once again ignoring pleas for a penalty. But, this time, his decision was echoed by VAR, who did not suggest an overturn. This was a decision that didn’t go down well with Ipswich fans, given they had conceded a penalty for a similar thing 30 minutes earlier.

    “In my eyes we had a clear penalty,” Ipswich boss Kieran McKenna told reporters. “We could have gone in at 3-2. That’s a really hard one to understand why it wasn’t given, especially with the intervention on the first goal.

    “I promised myself I wouldn’t speak too often about VAR coming into this league, but I don’t understand why the fourth official gave a signal that it had been turned down for a VAR check.

    “The only difference, you could say, is that for the first one the play has stopped, while the situation after our penalty appeal saw City keep the ball for a minute and it’s easier then to forget about it.

    “When I saw it live I thought it was nailed on and I’ve seen one replay where I thought Leif had one arm being pulled and another defender swipe across his legs. From the angle I’ve seen it’s hard to see how it’s not given.”

    GW1 VAR controversies

    Omitted from gameweek one’s selection is Crystal Palace midfielder Eberechi Eze’s brilliant goal during his side’s loss to Brentford. Although the whistle was blown before the ball crossed the goal line, the VAR could not intervene to check Will Hughes’ challenge with Nathan Collins to potentially overturn the on-field decision.

    “I was told [by the referee] that he blew too early and made the mistake,” Eze told BBC Match of the Day. “It could have changed the game but we have to deal with it.”

    Palace head coach Oliver Glasner said by admitting “he made a mistake” referee Sam Barrott “showed he is a great man”.

    Did Chelsea deserve a penalty for Kovacic’s handball?

    Chelsea were not awarded a penalty despite the ball touching Mateo Kovačić’s hand. This decision is based on the referee and VAR’s interpretation of the latest handball law implemented by the Premier League. The incident happened when Kovačić and Malo Gusto went for a 50-50 challenge inside the City box in the 77th minute. The Chelsea defender was first to reach the ball and as he attempted to kick it, it ricocheted up onto Kovačić’s arm before going out of play. Referee Anthony Taylor initially called it a corner, but VAR was later called to check the incident. After a thorough check, the VAR officials backed Taylor’s decision, and Chelsea’s corner stood.

    Per the new handball rule, not every touch of a player’s arm or hand will necessarily be considered an offence. Defenders can also play without having to keep their arms behind their backs. If a player’s arm is in a justifiable position, referees will not call a penalty should the ball hit them via a deflection, if they are falling, or if they are close to the ball. The new rule was implemented after several Premier League clubs raised concerns about the excessive number of handballs being called by officials in matches and argued that the existing rule was too strict last season.

    “No penalty. I’m all for the new interpretation – it’s so close and his arms are going towards his body,” was former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher’s assessment. “It does hit him, there’s no doubt, but this year we’re going to see a lot less penalties given. When we did the briefing last week – which I was on – it was explained that, under the new guidance, it’s no penalty. I’m more comfortable with that interpretation.”

    Was Cash’s challenge on Soucek really a penalty?

    West Ham were awarded a penalty in the 35th minute when Matty Cash brought down Tomás Soucek. Although Cash got a toe to the ball, the referee pointed to the spot and after a VAR check the penalty stood. Lucas Paquetá then scored from the spot to equalise for West Ham.

    Penalty decisions made on the field that wouldn’t be given through VAR are always controversial and often considered soft by fans. Many felt this was an example of a “higher bar” being set, as Cash did make contact with the ball.

    The VAR felt that despite Cash’s touch on the ball, it wasn’t enough to overturn the on-field decision, as he still had to reach around Soucek before bringing him down. Howard Webb, the head of PGMOL, cited similar penalties from the previous season where the VAR didn’t intervene and insisted that, while open to debate, they shouldn’t be considered clear and obvious errors. This decision falls into the same category – not a higher standard, just insufficient reason to overturn the on-field decision.

    “Cash touched the ball, there’s no doubt about that. Does touching the ball negate a foul? No,” Gallagher said. “I do know a lot of people think this isn’t a foul. That’s why you have to stick with the referee’s call because it’s so tight.”

    Were Everton hard done by with penalty overturn?

    • Match result: Everton 0-3 Brighton
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (63.9%)

    Referee Simon Hooper pointed to the penalty spot in the 47th minute when Lewis Dunk made contact with Dominic Calvert-Lewin while sliding. However, the VAR, Darren England, sent Hooper to the monitor to review the incident, and it was subsequently overturned.

    Toffees head coach Sean Dyche was unhappy after the game. He referred to there being a “very high bar” this season. Much of the coverage has talked about a “higher bar,” yet that isn’t the case. Perhaps the message got mixed up in the move to use “referee’s call” over “clear and obvious,” and the drive to make VAR quicker and more efficient. Both are part of the six-point plan to improve VAR.

    Could Schär have stayed on?

    • Match result: Newcastle 1-0 Southampton
    • VAR says: Red card
    • Squawka poll says: No red card (82.5%)

    Fabián Schär was shown a red card by referee Craig Pawson in the 28th minute after a clash with Ben Brereton Díaz. As the two players faced off, the Newcastle United defender was judged to have moved his head into Brereton Díaz’s and was dismissed for violent conduct. Once the VAR, Chris Kavanagh, identified that Schär directed his head into the opponent’s, there was no likelihood of VAR intervention.

    Brereton Díaz’s actions can be questioned, as the Southampton player theatrically threw himself to the ground. He was booked for his part in the tussle but would not receive another caution for simulation after the opponent had been sent off.

    Did Savinho get away with it on debut?

    • Match result: Chelsea 0-2 Man City
    • VAR says: No penalty
    • Squawka poll says: No penalty (53.8%)

    In the 33rd minute, Manchester City winger Savinho, making his Premier League debut for the champions after joining this summer, collided with Chelsea skipper Enzo Fernández, who went down in the City box, but referee Anthony Taylor wasn’t interested. VAR had a quick look but declined to intervene, confirming the referee’s on-field decision.

    READ MORE:

    Previous Article

    Atalanta vs Arsenal predicted lineups and team news

    Next Article

    How AI may have helped Liverpool seal Champions League comeback...

    Related Articles

    Show More