VAR errors increase: Each of the 13 mistakes so far this season

[sunburywhite]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cvgrx8ml7m0o

And CHelsea have 3 in thier favour and none against

[FFC1987]

Am I misreading, or is that article trying to suggest we only had one bad decision from VAR this season!? Then suggests our net position being worse off by 4. Not sure how to treat the article looking at that.

[Thailand Mick]

Don't understand the list  when some penalty decisions were given or not given count as VAR errors and some don't. However you will see we have had the most errors of -4.

[_Putney_]

The BBC are the truth. Do not question their facts.

[sunburywhite]

The BBC is Ministry of Truth (Minitrue)

[Twig]

I assume it's based only on those VAR decisions that have been formally acknowledged and apologies given?

[demeant0r]

This is for the first half of the season but even then there's been more than one bad decision. Maybe, these are the mistakes that PGMOL have admitted to. Our true position in that table is a lot worse.

[Deeping_white]

Am I misreading, or is that article trying to suggest we only had one bad decision from VAR this season!? Then suggests our net position being worse off by 4. Not sure how to treat the article looking at that.

No it suggests we've been the worst off from VAR decisions, but the major ones that all got an individual breakdown are the ones where there was both a refereeing and VAR error. We've also got a callout in the next section which was the Bassey foul when United scored against us, which they admit the ref should've ruled out, and as a result wouldn't have had a VAR intervention/review if it had've been.

[hopper]

The BBC is Ministry of Truth (Minitrue)

They're just reporting what the Premier League has reported as being wrong. They're not claiming authority, so you might want to redirect your ire towards the relevant party here...

[Arthur]

Maybe, these are the mistakes that PGMOL have admitted to. Our true position in that table is a lot worse.

It's mistakes that the Key Match Incidents Panel (which is a 5-man group that includes former footballers and meets every week) has identified. The purpose of the panel is to take the identification of errors out of the hands of the PGMOL.

What it isn't is a list of errors according to supporters who, perhaps, are not always as knowledgeable or as unbiased as we believe ourselves to be.

Something that stands out to me that illustrates the difficulty in assessing subjective infringements such as fouls and handball shouts is that in only 3 of the 13 mistakes the KMI Panel identified was it unanimous in a 5-0 vote that VAR had erred (of which Josh King's disallowed goal at Chelsea was one of those three).

[Twig]

The BBC is Ministry of Truth (Minitrue)

This has nothing to do with the BBC's interpretation of truth, they are reporting the Prem's list, so nothing to do with how truthful or accurate they are.

[Twig]

The BBC are the truth. Do not question their facts.

Well that's rather silly since it's not the Beeb's facts that are there to be questioned.

[Jim©]

Does this include the Wirtz offside (5cm and all that)?

[General]

Am I misreading, or is that article trying to suggest we only had one bad decision from VAR this season!? Then suggests our net position being worse off by 4. Not sure how to treat the article looking at that.

I think it's not being position wise worse off by four, but we've had 4 incidents go against us which have resulted in unfavourable decisions for us - so we've lost 4 goals from four bad VAR decisions - which from my understanding is them saying we're the worst off out of all the PL clubs for decisions that have gone against us

It also goes on to suggest that we had a further two cases - Bassey being pushed in the lead up to a Man Utd goal, and not having Andersen sent off vs Palace which were additional VAR worthy interventions that weren't made

[Arthur]

Am I misreading, or is that article trying to suggest we only had one bad decision from VAR this season!? Then suggests our net position being worse off by 4. Not sure how to treat the article looking at that.

I think it's not being position wise worse off by four, but we've had 4 incidents go against us which have resulted in unfavourable decisions for us - so we've lost 4 goals from four bad VAR decisions - which from my understanding is them saying we're the worst off out of all the PL clubs for decisions that have gone against us

It also goes on to suggest that we had a further two cases - Bassey being pushed in the lead up to a Man Utd goal, and not having Andersen sent off vs Palace which were additional VAR worthy interventions that weren't made

I agree the table takes a bit of working out - in part, I suspect, because it's not familiar to us.

What it does not indicate, however, is that the KMI panel have identified 4 incorrect decisions, each of which has resulted in a goal either being wrongly taken away from us or wrongly awarded against us.

It does show we have had four more VAR decisions go against us than in our favour and that, overall, we've been disadvantaged by 4 goals - either goals for us that VAR ruled out, or goals we conceded due to the intervention of VAR. (Of these, the Key Match-Incidents Panel have identified only one instance of VAR intervening incorrectly to change an on-field decision: Josh King at Chelsea.)

It also tells us 2 penalties have been awarded against us after VAR has sent the referee to the monitor. (If converted, these are not an addition to our 4-goal deficit; they are part of it.)

How many times VAR has intervened in our matches cannot be determined from the table.

The 2 additional incidents - one of which would have gone in our favour and the other against us - indicate the KMI Panel deemed the referee to have made a mistake which, nonetheless, did not meet the 'clear and obvious' marker to merit the involvement of VAR.

I presume the statistics are accurate; I certainly wouldn't trust myself to recall every instance VAR has seen fit to change an on-field decision this season.

[fulhamfever]

Aston Villa away we had 2 pens turned down Cash's handball and Kings pen

Kings goal v Chelsea

ESR v Palace (if we are going off the 5cm rule)

I don't even know anymore with VAR

[Thailand Mick]

3 penalty appeals vs Brighton
Josh King goal vs Chelsea
Cash handball vs Villa
Muniz og vs Man utd
Offside goal vs Liverpool
Muniz goal vs Brentford
Penalty vs Chelsea
The last two didn't cost us any points.

[Arthur]

Aston Villa away we had 2 pens turned down Cash's handball and Kings pen
ESR v Palace (if we are going off the 5cm rule)

The two penalties were turned down by the referee. The Key Match-Incidents Panel considered neither decision to be a mistake. As such, VAR had no need to intervene and, therefore, neither incident is included in the data.

The article published on the BBC website has no mention of VAR making errors in determining whether a player is offside. Again, as such, the goal chalked off in the Palace game is not recorded in the table.

What the article shows is that Chelsea have benefitted from errors more than any other club - followed by Newcastle.

No club stands out as having suffered more than any other, although Manchester United (big club) are the only team to have two more VAR errors go against them than in their favour. Overall, perhaps, Brentford can lay claim to being most unfortunate: they have also had two VAR mistakes go against them - but offset by one in their favour. Alongside this, however, they've been disadvantaged by four refereeing errors that didn't meet the threshold for VAR intervention with only one similar mistake going their way.

If there were no VAR and football relied solely upon the match officials, according to the data, Manchester United and Crystal Palace would be able to point to the greatest number of obvious refereeing injustices. And Bournemouth, Everton and... wait for it... ourselves would be seen as the luckiest clubs to benefit from such dubious calls.

Right or wrong, it's how I interpret it all.

[Rambler]

BBC and other news outlets crying out about city last night but when it happens to 'small old Fulham' no one really makes a big deal.

We still don't know if an apology from VAR was made regarding wirtz at Liverpool do we.
Whilst I'm not a fan of VAR I really quite enjoy  when it goes against the big clubs because the majority of the time they get the decisions.

[Rupert]

If there were no VAR and football relied solely upon the match officials, according to the data, Manchester United and Crystal Palace would be able to point to the greatest number of obvious refereeing injustices. And Bournemouth, Everton and... wait for it... ourselves would be seen as the luckiest clubs to benefit from such dubious calls.

Right or wrong, it's how I interpret it all.

Are we looking at different tables, or something? We are bottom of the VAR net decisions, which means we have had four more go against us than for us. Far from being the luckiest, we are the unluckiest.
Four goals that should not have counted against us, or should have counted for us (ie Josh King).
Two penalties that should not have been awarded against us or should have been awarded to us.

The table shows that Chelsea and Man U have been the greatest beneficiaries of the VAR people's largesse, followed by Palace and Newcastle. Palace's high position can probably be largely explained just by their matches against us.

Just as a matter of interest, how many dubious calls in our favour can you list, if we really are the most blessed of clubs?