and ours wasn’t.” He further elaborated on the inconsistency: “It feels as though certain clubs get those decisions and other clubs don’t.”
This statement underscores the perception among coaches and managers that VAR’s intervention can be selective, favoring some teams over others. The absence of a unified approach to such calls adds another layer of complexity to the officiating process.
Newcastle vs. Chelsea: Another VAR Dispute
Meanwhile, in the Newcastle vs. Chelsea match on December 20, 2025, the panel found that the decision by referee Andy Madley not to award a penalty for Anthony Gordon’s challenge on Virgil van Dijk was correct. The panel also agreed with Michael Salisbury’s conclusion that there was no clear and obvious error in the initial call.
Despite this unanimous decision, the VAR did not advise sending the match official to the monitor, which led to the end of the match as 2-2. Newcastle head coach Eddie Howe later mentioned their intention to seek clarification on the decision, indicating that the club remains unsatisfied with the outcome.
Panel’s Consistency and Bias Concerns
The Premier League’s Key Match Incidents Panel has been scrutinized for its consistency in decisions involving VAR. The contrasting outcomes between the Everton vs. Arsenal game and the Newcastle vs.
Chelsea match highlight potential biases or inconsistencies within the panel itself.
Each decision by the panel is made up of five members, comprising three former players or coaches, one representative from the Premier League, and one from the Professional Game Match Officials. Despite their expertise, these decisions continue to provoke debates on fairness and impartiality in modern football officiating.
The latest rulings underscore the evolving nature of VAR technology and its impact on match outcomes. As these technologies become more integrated into football, questions about their reliability and objectivity will likely persist, driving ongoing discussions among stakeholders within the sport.
