VAR in the Premier League: Errors and Controversies of the 2024-25 Season

VAR and its Errors: Analysis of the 2024-25 Season in the Premier League

The 2025-26 Premier League season is just around the corner, but there’s still time to analyze the VAR controversy from the previous campaign. Which teams were most harmed by refereeing errors? Which ones benefited? Were Arsenal fans right to feel disadvantaged? Alofoke Deportes delves into the most significant failures, especially those related to dangerous play, where four red cards were overturned after appeal to the Football Association. We also examine the successes, highlighting the best referees and video assistants, and those who need to improve.

Below, we present the complete list of the 18 VAR errors recorded by the Premier League Key Incident Panel, and how they voted.

Declan Rice leads the complaints to referee Michael Oliver after he sent off Myles Lewis-Skelly, a decision that was not overturned after the VAR review.

Catherine Ivill – AMA/Getty Images

VAR Errors Revealed in the Premier League 2024-25

Players, coaches, and fans complained about VAR decisions throughout the season. However, every time a team laments, another celebrates the intervention of VAR (although their opinion is not always heard). Sometimes, referees and VAR make mistakes, especially regarding dangerous play. Brentford’s Christian Nørgaard and AFC Bournemouth’s Evanilson received red cards due to VAR intervention that were overturned on appeal. In addition, Arsenal’s Myles Lewis-Skelly and Manchester United’s Bruno Fernandes were sent off by the referee, but VAR did not intervene. Everton defender James Tarkowski also escaped a red card after a harsh tackle on Liverpool’s Alexis Mac Allister.

Who Decides if a Mistake Was Made?

The Premier League created the Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel at the beginning of the 2022-23 season with the intention of offering an impartial assessment. Before 2022, the organization in charge of refereeing, Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), compiled the statistics. The clubs argued that the figures favored the referees, so the KMI panel was created. The panel is made up of five members: three former footballers and/or coaches, a representative from the Premier League, and one from PGMOL. Each member has a vote on the KMI in two categories: the referee’s original decision and whether VAR should intervene. A simple majority is required to determine whether the decision is correct or incorrect, so the former footballers can tip the balance. After each matchday, a document with the votes and the reasons is delivered to the clubs. However, it remains a subjective opinion by committee, and referees and clubs may not agree.

Winners and Losers

Brentford was the team with the most errors (3), two of them in matches where they did not achieve victory. Bournemouth is next on the list and, as we will see, their coach Andoni Iraola has reasons to be upset with VAR. His team leads almost all categories, including interventions against and, crucially, disallowed goals. Although Brentford suffered more errors, those of Bournemouth had a greater impact. In fact, Bournemouth suffered the first error of the season on the first matchday, when a goal by Dango Ouattara against Newcastle was disallowed for handball in added time. In April, Evanilson received an incorrect red card by VAR. The Cherries were winning when the striker was sent off, and the match ended 1-1. Brighton and Everton benefited the most, with three errors in their favor each. Here is the list of the 18 errors, including the comments from the KMI panel.

• Bournemouth 1-1 Newcastle, August 25

Dango Ouattara goal disallowed for handball (90+2′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 5-0
• KMI panel vote to the VAR: 0-5

Bournemouth scored a goal in added time, but VAR intervened to disallow it for a handball by the goalscorer.What the KMI panel said: “The panel was unanimous in agreeing that the goal was correctly awarded on the field and that there was no conclusive evidence available of an accidental handball by the attacker, which would be required for VAR to intervene.”

It was not clear whether the ball had touched Dango Ouattara’s arm.

BBC

• Man United 0-3 Tottenham, September 29

Dangerous play, red card to Bruno Fernandes (41′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 0-5
• KMI panel vote to the VAR: 0-5

The Man United were losing 1-0 when captain Fernandes was sent off after a tackle on James Maddison in which he made contact with his studs (but without making contact). VAR did not intervene to downgrade the card to yellow. The red card was overturned after an appeal to the FA.What the KMI panel said: “Fernandes arrives, the contact is high but there is certainly no excessive force nor does it endanger safety. There is also evidence for a VAR intervention.”

Bruno Fernandes’ tackle on James Maddison only deserved a yellow card.Michael Regan/Getty Images

• West Ham 2-1 Man United, October 27

Penalty awarded for Matthijs de Ligt’s foul on Danny Ings (90+2′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 5-0
• KMI panel vote to the VAR: 0-5

The VAR suggested that a penalty be awarded to West Ham in added time. Jarrod Bowen converted it, giving the home team a 2-1 victory. The panel voted 5-0 that the cancellation was an error. And United coach Erik ten Hag was fired the next morning.

What the KMI panel said: “A collision between two players contesting a loose ball, the referee is in a great position and decides to play on. The panel unanimously supported the referee’s original decision not to call a penalty”.

Manchester United players protest after a penalty was called by VAR against Matthijs de Ligt.

James Gill – Danehouse/Getty Images

• Everton 0-0 Brentford, November 23

Christian Nørgaard sent off for dangerous play (39′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 3-2
• KMI panel vote to the VAR: 2-3

The referee didn’t call a foul on the Brentford captain after he made contact with Everton goalkeeper Jordan Pickford’s knee while sliding to reach a cross. VAR sent the referee to the monitor and suggested a red card. The red card was overturned on appeal. This was a 3-2 split vote.

What the KMI panel said: “The panel was divided (3:2), and the majority considered the decision on the field correct, as ‘both players committed to normal football actions’. Two panelists considered the decision on the field incorrect as ‘while this was a challenge for the ball, there was high, full and forceful contact with the cleats'”.

PGMOL insists that the decision to send off Christian Nørgaard was correct, despite the KMI panel’s vote.Jan Kruger/Getty Images

• Aston Villa 2-2 Crystal Palace, November 23

DOGSO, red card not shown to Ian Maatsen (65′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 1-4
• KMI panel vote to VAR: 2-3

Ismaïla Sarr was heading towards the goal when he was brought down by Aston Villa defender Maatsen. The referee and VAR felt there was a covering player, and Maatsen was cautioned. Palace were winning 2-1 at the time and the match ended 2-2.

What the KMI panel said: “Sarr has control, touches the ball towards the goal and would have had an obvious opportunity to shoot at goal. The panel (3:2) felt that VAR should have intervened for a clear and obvious error”.

Ismaïla Sarr could have shot at goal when he was brought down by Ian Maatsen.

BBC

• Everton 4-0 Wolves, December 4th

Abdoulaye Doucouré offside on the goal (72′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 1-4
• KMI panel vote to the VAR: 1-4

Everton had already seen a goal disallowed by VAR in the 16th minute for the same offside infringement, blocking an opponent by Orel Mangala. When Doucouré did the same in the 72nd minute, leading to Craig Dawson scoring an own goal to put Everton 4-0 up, there was no intervention.

What the KMI panel said: “The attacker’s offside actions clearly impact the defender’s ability to challenge for or play the ball. The panel concluded that both the on-field decision (4:1) and the VAR’s decision not to intervene (4:1) were incorrect”.

Abdoulaye Doucouré in an offside position preventing a Wolves player from stopping the cross.

NBC

• Nottingham Forest 2-1 Aston Villa, December 14

Penalty not awarded. Foul by Elliot Anderson (34′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 2-3
• KMI panel vote to the VAR: 2-3

Most of the KMI panel felt that Anderson’s foul on Morgan Rogers had just crossed the threshold for a VAR penalty when the score was goalless. However, it also said that a review on the pitchside monitor would have allowed the referee to assess Rogers’ previous holding.What the KMI panel said: “Anderson grabs Rogers outside the area, but this continues inside. The holding foul is clear.”

While VAR should have intervened after Elliot Anderson brought down Morgan Rogers, it may not have resulted in a penalty on the monitor.

BBC

• West Ham 1-1 Brighton, December 21st

Dangerous play, red card not shown to Pervis Estupiñán (84′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 1-4
• KMI panel vote to the VAR: 1-4

Estupiñán was cautioned for a foul on Max Kilman, with the score at 1-1, and VAR chose not to review the play for a red card.What the KMI panel said: “Estupiñán’s action has speed, force, intensity and endangers the opponent’s safety.”

Pervis Estupiñán was not sent off after a reckless challenge on Max Kilman.

BBC

• Brighton 0-0 Brentford, December 27

Violent conduct, red card not shown to João Pedro (75′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 0-5
• KMI panel vote to the VAR: 0-5

João Pedro was brought down by Yehor Yarmoliuk, then the Brighton forward threw his elbow backwards. João Pedro made no contact, but did it with force, however, VAR decided this was not enough for a red card for violent conduct. Coincidentally, Pedro was sent off for violent conduct in the second leg.

What the KMI panel said: “A clear attempt to hit Yarmoliuk by João Pedro. No contact is needed according to the Rules of the Game for this clear action to result in a red card for violent conduct. There is no place in football for actions like this”.

João Pedro escaped a red card after throwing an arm in the direction of Yehor Yarmoliuk.

NBC

• West Ham 0-5 Liverpool, December 29th

Penalty not awarded. Foul by Alexis Mac Allister (35′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 2-3
• KMI panel vote to the VAR: 2-3

This was an off-the-ball tussle between Carlos Soler and Mac Allister, when West Ham United were losing 1-0. Mohammed Kudus sent in a cross from the right, which Lucas Paquetá diverted towards the arms of goalkeeper Alphonse Areola at the near post. In the center of the area, Soler (who had no chance of challenging for the ball) fell under pressure from Mac Allister.

What the KMI panel said: “The panel was divided (3:2), and the majority considered the decision on the field incorrect, since ‘he [Mac Allister] turns his back to the ball, his only motivation is to prevent the attacker [Soler] and throws him to the ground’. The opposing opinion was that ‘there is an initial confrontation of both players and it does not have a clear impact on the game'”.

Alexis Mac Allister battles with Carlos Soler inside the area.

West Ham United

• Ipswich 0-2 Brighton, January 19

Penalty not given. Foul by Wes Burns (11′)

• KMI panel vote for the referee: 0-5
• KMI panel vote for the VAR: 1-4

Burns was holding onto Jan Paul van Hecke, preventing the Brighton player from getting to the ball. The score was 0-0 at that moment, and Brighton took the three points.What the KMI panel said: “The body position and contact, initiated by Burns, should have been sanctioned. Van Hecke has to get involved while trying to get past the defender. Burns doesn’t try to look at the ball, let alone play it.”

• Nottingham Forest 3-2 Southampton, January 19

Nikola Milenkovic’s goal disallowed for offside against Chris Wood (64′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 4-1
• KMI panel vote to the VAR: 1-4

Wood had returned the ball from an offside position, but there was no impact on an opponent and the goal should have stood. The panel voted 4-1 that it was an incorrect intervention. Forest were winning 3-1 at the time.What the KMI panel said: “Wood comes from an offside position ‘but does not impact on the ability of any opponent to play or challenge for the ball’. One panelist felt that ‘Wood impacts on a defender’s ability; specifically on his decision of which space to defend'”.

Chris Wood played the ball from an offside position, but this did not affect an opponent.

BBC

• Wolves 0-1 Arsenal, January 25

Dangerous play, red card shown to Myles Lewis-Skelly (43′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 0-5
• KMI panel vote to the VAR: 1-4

One of the most controversial decisions of the season, Lewis-Skelly’s red card for a trip on Matt Doherty just outside the attacking penalty area was confirmed in the VAR review. The score was goalless at the time of the sending-off, and the Gunners got the winning goal in the 74th minute, after Wolves were also reduced to 10 men.

What the KMI panel said: “A cynical trip to stop a counterattack. The initial point of contact is high on the shin, but not with force and with the side of the boot. This initial contact quickly goes down to the foot, which means that this foul should only result in a yellow card for a reckless tackle”.

Myles Lewis-Skelly was controversially sent off in Arsenal’s win at Wolves.

BBC

• Brighton 0-3 Aston Villa, April 2

Penalty not awarded. Foul by Jack Hinshelwood (36′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 0-5
• KMI panel vote to VAR: 0-5

The match was scoreless in the first half when Jacob Ramsey tried to pass to Hinshelwood, and the Brighton player stretched out his leg and clearly committed a foul. But the referee did nothing and VAR did not overturn the decision.

What the KMI panel said: “A clear trip and a negligent foul”.

Jacob Ramsey was clearly fouled by Jack Hinshelwood.

BBC

• Liverpool 1-0 Everton, April 2

Dangerous play, red card not shown to James Tarkowski (11′)

• KMI panel vote for the referee: 0-5
• KMI panel vote for the VAR: 0-5

Tarkowski went out to make a tackle/clearance and hit Liverpool midfielder Mac Allister in the shin hard. Everton should have played with 10 men early in the match, although Liverpool won the match.What the KMI panel said: “The clear dangerous nature of the tackle is not mitigated by the fact that Tarkowski won the ball first. A clear example of endangering the safety of an opponent.”

James Tarkowski should have been sent off for dangerous play.

Liverpool FC/Liverpool FC via Getty Images

• Fulham 3-2 Liverpool, April 6th

Penalty not awarded. Foul by Caoimhín Kelleher (5′)

• KMI panel vote to the referee: 1-4
• KMI panel vote to the VAR: 1-4

The Liverpool goalkeeper had thrown himself to make himself big while Andreas Pereira helped pass the ball through the area. Kelleher was late and brought down the Fulham attacker, although the home team took the three points anyway.What the KMI panel said: “‘Kelleher is not at all near the ball, takes out Pereira and the contact is significant’, although one panelist felt that ‘despite the contact, it doesn’t affect Pereira’s ability to play the ball'”.