And which encapsulates the problems with VAR it a nutshell, namely that nobody has a clue what the actual standards are for intervention, since "clear and obvious" is such a vague phrase that it has essentially become meaningless.
No redemption gonna happen in this story, sad. https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/2106793/ex-premier-league-referee-david-coote
Obviously very sad, but it highlights in just what a fishbowl EPL referees live in compared to maybe any other referees in the world. There are and have been MLS referees who have had serious off field incidents and legal issues and most on this forum don't know much if anything about them let alone it being an article on ESPN FC or in any US newspaper. Also, some of those incidents have been pretty serious.
Let's just say Spurs fans aren't thrilled about that disallowed goal around 20'. Especially with what Arsenal gets away with every week on corners.
Wait, this was upheld? Spurs thought they had taken the lead on this corner—but a foul was called and West Ham were given a free kick. pic.twitter.com/P7xUomOUcm— NBC Sports Soccer (@NBCSportsSoccer) September 13, 2025
Yep #WHUTOT – 19’ The referee’s call of no goal was checked and confirmed by VAR – with it deemed that van de Ven pushed Walker-Peters in the back and impacted his ability to play the ball.— Premier League Match Centre (@PLMatchCentre) September 13, 2025
Also the victim is literally grabbing the goal-scorer's shirt while he, the "victim," is allegedly fouled. I think I'm actually more concerned that Gillett called this in the first place as opposed to VAR not intervening. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good goal with no clear foul and in MLS this goes to review (if a referee is silly enough to call it). But, in the first place, what compels you to look at that mass of bodies and disallow a goal? I don't get it. Once given, understanding the very high standards in England, I sort of understand (or maybe reluctantly expect) the lack of an intervention. It's still pretty dumb, though. Very few people are going to look at this entire sequence of events and think a goal should be disallowed.
Exactly. The lack of VAR intervention is whatever. Its not interesting anymore. What compels a professional referee to try and "find" a way to disallow the goal? I thought we went away from this. Rule of thumb is if you see a bunch of holding let it play out and if the defender complains just tell him "you were holding him just as much you were him. I can't disallow it." One of the positives that refereeing has greatly improved over the past 20 years or so is that referees have stopped trying to be clever and call phantom fouls on attackers on set pieces. Go watch a game from the early 2000s. Collina and Co. were calling fouls coming out on seemingly every set play just because. They called it as soon as the free kick was taken so they didn't have to deal with any potential penalty kick situation See this. Perfectly good goal, but because there was some contact on the defender the referee disallowed. Perfectly good goal in today's game.
I can nearly guarantee you that they missed the GK who shoved the entire pile. Would it make any sense at all to change the rule to allow no attackers inside in the 6 until the CK is actually taken???
Yeah let’s make a rule to help the defense more and also create something really stupid (toe nail in the goal area) that can go to VAR to negate goals. Great idea.
well, who really wants to see a big dogpile all purposefully stacked directly in front of the Keeper??? Is that really attacking soccer?
So, do you think we will get "this wasn't controversial, it was wrong" from Webb? Because the more I watch it, the more it just seems wrong to me. Attacker does make contact, but it's prompted by others and the worst observable foul actions are by defenders. At least with the Fulham/Chelsea play, there's a philosophical debate about space and the "victim" in that case genuinely got hurt by an action that is typically worth a yellow card. You can understand why a VAR intervenes, despite what Webb said here and the immediate toss under the bus. Here, I really don't think I see a foul. Or if I do, it's a very soft foul and one catalyzed by a worse foul from the opponent. It's wrong upon wrong. But I actually doubt Webb admits error here. I think they'll hide behind "referee's judgment" and say the VAR was right not to insert himself. And thus a new front in the error of commission versus error of omission battle emerges. It's worse for a VAR to intervene to get rid of a perceived good goal than it is for a VAR to fail to intervene to restore a badly disallowed goal. It would be consistent with not going after Oliver for failing to spot the DOGSO red in Week 1. We're shifting the paradigm, I bet. Though hope I'm wrong.
I think you're on to something here (if I'm understanding properly what you're getting at with this and your other post). I can't find a good replay, but during the Everton/Aston Villa match yesterday, Tarkowski made a well timed challenge around the halfway line to win the ball. Now arguably it could've been a foul; that's not why I bring it up. Simon Hooper was right next to it and initially made a motion that indicated it was a fair challenge. Tarkowski immediately played a pass towards Aston Villa's backline which put Everton in a threatening attacking position. And when Simon Hooper looked up and realized how threatening of a position Everton were in, THEN he decided Tarkowski's tackle had been a foul. Maybe I have a biased point of view on this play as an Everton fan. But my immediate thought was: Simon Hooper's afraid he's made a mistake, and because it could result in a goal he wants to avoid it going to VAR. And that stands out, because Tarkowski's challenge would've gone to VAR anyway had he let play continue and a goal had been scored. That would line up with what you're saying: the ref is afraid to have a goal occur that VAR then overturns. Of course, you can't get inside a referee's head and know exactly what they were thinking at that time and even then it could be subconsciously affected by outside influences. Maybe Simon Hooper does the exact same thing without VAR in the back of his mind. But my worry is that VAR in England isn't being used like a backup tool to ensure nothing egregious is missed. It's being used to scrutinize the on field refereeing, which is then causing refs to call plays in ways they wouldn't have before due to being afraid to make a mistake. That then is the explanation for why Gillett called off the Spurs goal: he saw a West Ham player on the ground and he was worried he'd missed something. In a proper system, if he was afraid he'd missed something he'd let the goal stand and rely on VAR to catch what he'd missed.
This is a perfect example of why having "coaches challenges" would be really useful.....because it's pretty clear that VARs are utterly inconsistent in deciding whether or not to intervene.
Taylor has the Manchester derby right now. He also has a CL match at PSV Tuesday--in the early window. He literally won't have 48 hours rest.
Do you think if you post this enough you will will it into existence or change my mind? What makes you think that Gillett would be more likely to change his mind on something he saw and called because a coach challenged? Because I'd argue that Gillett would look at this and uphold his call. Also, if he had blown the whistle before the goal, then no challenge is allowed anyway (which, I would argue, he'd be more likely to do if not for the instructions related to the current VAR system). And, once again, if this incident comes late and there are no challenges left, then what. I could go on. There are a lot of ways this goal stands even with a challenge system. And, outside England, VAR allows this goal (if the foul is even called in the first place). This is an England problem, not a VAR problem. I don't want to defend the system. And definitely not how England uses it. But I also don't want to make it worse.
I don't really care about whether or not I change your mind.....you're not the only person on these boards, and plenty of other people also think that the idea of some sort of "coaches challenge" system is an idea worth investigating. It wouldn't be perfect, but it certainly couldn't be any worse than what we have now, where the standard for what constitutes a reviewable "clear and obvious" error is a muddled mess, and you have just as many complaints about why a call was/was not reviewed as you do about the original call itself. As to your specific statements about this incident: - it would not be the CR adjudicating the challenge, it would be the VAR - if the coach does not have any challenges left, then he/she might get criticized for wasting their challenge....this is why coaches in the sports that do have a challenge system are very cautious about using them early in a game unless they are 100% certain that they're going to win the challenge and/or the play in question is likely to have a major impact on the outcome. The main benefit of a coaches challenge system the fact that it gives teams/managers agency, thus leading to less post-game criticism of the officials. You're not necessarily going to end up with better overall outcomes, but you'll reduce the amount of complaining.