Referees’ body PGMOL has effectively admitted the respective VAR decisions to disallow goals at Chelsea and Newcastle on Saturday were wrong and promised to “fully co-operate” with a Premier League review of the incidents.
The Professional Game Match Officials’ Board took the rare step of “acknowledging” the specific controversies in a statement on Sunday, and accepted the Premier League’s request for an additional investigation.
VAR decisions in all affected matches are already reviewed by a five-strong independent panel comprising representatives of the Premier League and the PGMOL as well as three former players, with their findings sent to the clubs concerned.
David Moyes was furious to see West Ham’s late equaliser disallowed at Stamford Bridge (Steven Paston/PA)
So it is significant that PGMOL has taken the extra step after Saturday’s action, with West Ham denied a late equaliser against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, while the Magpies drew 0-0 with Crystal Palace after a Tyrick Mitchell own goal was ruled out at St James’ Park.
PGMOL said in a statement: “PGMOL acknowledge the incidents to disallow the goals in the Chelsea v West Ham and Newcastle v Crystal Palace fixtures.
“We will fully co-operate and collaborate with the Premier League and their request to review these two particular incidents, using the outcome as part of the ongoing assessment of weekly performances and the development of our match officials going forward.”
Both decisions were heavily criticised, with Hammers boss David Moyes branding VAR official Jarred Gillett unfit for duty after confronting referee Andy Madley.
Maxwel Cornet’s strike was cancelled out after a VAR review in the London derby, with Jarrod Bowen deemed to have fouled Edouard Mendy as he attempted to reach a ball which was spilled by the goalkeeper.
A furious Moyes said: “I’m amazed that VAR sent the referee for him to see it. But I thought even if he goes to the TV there’s no way he’s overturning this, because this is a goal. It was a ridiculously bad decision.
“I’d question VAR today as much as the referee. But the referee should have stuck to his own guns. The sad thing is this is the level of the weak refereeing at the moment.
“Look, ultimately, I make loads of mistakes, referees can make loads of mistakes. But I would hope if the referee made a mistake, that’s why it’s corrected by VAR.
“But if you’re saying today that the referee’s mistake was corrected by VAR, I’m saying I do not see that in a million years. And I’m actually more embarrassed for the guy who did the VAR than I am even for the referee.
“Because that’s telling me it’s someone who doesn’t understand football and probably shouldn’t be near it, if they think that was enough to send the referee to the screen.”
🗣 "I don't think it should have been disallowed."
Eddie Howe's verdict on today's game.
— Newcastle United FC (@NUFC) September 3, 2022
Newcastle manager Eddie Howe was rather more measured in his reaction to seeing Mitchell’s own goal overturned.
Referee Michael Salisbury ruled it out for a foul by Joe Willock on goalkeeper Vicente Guaita but Howe said: “I didn’t think it should have been disallowed, personally, I thought it was a foul or a push on Joe Willock in the build-up to the ball coming in.
“Joe’s momentum is fixed at that point from his opponent, it then carries him into the goalkeeper.
“But without that push, there’s no way that Joe would have gone in with that force, so for me it’s not a foul. If anything, it’s a penalty if it’s not a goal, so I was very surprised with the outcome.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here