The inconsistency of VAR on penalties

2 months ago7 min read

The inconsistency of VAR on penalties isn't just a weekly talking point; it's a fundamental flaw in the Premier League's quest for perfect officiating, exposing a system where the initial call on the field holds a power so immense it can render the video review almost moot. Take this past weekend's stark dichotomy: on Saturday, Everton's Thierno Barry felt the boot of Arsenal's William Saliba, a clear, albeit not brutal, contact that referee Sam Barrott waved away, a decision VAR Michael Salisbury saw no 'clear and obvious' error to overturn.Fast forward to Monday, and a near-identical scenario unfolded at Craven Cottage, where Douglas Luiz's light clip of Kevin Mbabu's foot prompted Anthony Taylor to immediately point to the spot, a call VAR, again, saw no reason to dispute. The key difference? Purely the referee's first instinct.This isn't about right or wrong in isolation; it's about a league that has painted itself into a corner with its own 'high threshold' philosophy, instituted ahead of the 2021-22 season after a spate of soft penalties—remember Andy Robertson on Danny Welbeck for Brighton?—drew widespread criticism. The directive now is clear: when two players go for a ball in the air with a realistic chance, a marginal timing difference shouldn't yield a spot-kick via VAR.This logic was affirmed two seasons ago when Arsenal's Gabriel Jesus was denied a penalty after a challenge from, ironically, the same Douglas Luiz, with the Key Match Incidents Panel backing the non-intervention. Yet, this creates a maddening paradox.The system is designed not to find the 'correct' decision in a vacuum, but merely to check if the on-field decision is within the bounds of acceptability. So, had Barrott given Everton a penalty, Salisbury would have likely stayed silent, just as VAR did for Taylor.We therefore have two virtually identical physical actions resulting in opposite match outcomes, all hinging on a split-second human judgment that the technology is ostensibly there to correct. Contrast this with Europe, where UEFA's stricter interpretation, penalizing any clear contact regardless of intent in such duels, strives for a more robotic consistency, even if it sometimes feels harsh.The Premier League's approach, championing the referee's 'feel for the game,' inherently sanctifies inconsistency, leaving fans, players, and managers in a perpetual state of confusion. It turns every 50-50 incident into a lottery based on which official is in the middle, undermining the very credibility VAR was meant to bolster.The data is damning: the threshold is so high that interventions for penalties have plummeted, but the subjective chaos has soared. Until the PGMOL embraces a more European-style directive or provides crystal-clear, public benchmarks for what constitutes a 'clear and obvious' error in these situations—beyond opaque phrases about 'realistic prospects'—this cycle of weekend outrage and contradictory examples will continue to erode trust. The technology is there, but the philosophical application is failing the sport, making the beautiful game a game of officiating roulette where the house, frustratingly, always wins.

#VAR

#penalties

#refereeing

#inconsistency

#Premier League

#Everton

#Fulham

#editorial picks news

Stay Informed. Act Smarter.

Get weekly highlights, major headlines, and expert insights — then put your knowledge to work in our live prediction markets.

Related News