The full transcript of the VAR check for Callum Wilson’s disallowed goal against Arsenal on Sunday has been revealed, and it raises more questions than answers.
Referee Chris Kavanagh’s on-field decision was to give the goal, but VAR official Darren England recommended an on-field review.
That review led Kavanagh to change his mind and award a foul to Arsenal instead, after it was adjudged that Pablo had fouled David Raya.
It was a decision that has led to significant widespread debate.
While it cannot be argued that Pablo did indeed commit a foul on Raya, many have questioned why that sort of decision hasn’t been consistent all season and why several other fouls in the buildup to the incident weren’t also reviewed.
But the revealed transcript shows that, in fact, the match officials, both at London Stadium and in Stockley Park did touch on the other offences by Arsenal players before Pablo’s foul.
However, it’s now clear that they didn’t do anywhere near enough to scrutinise the actions of Arsenal players, and felt obliged to put almost all of their focus on what happened between Pablo and Raya.
Leandro Trossard’s foul on Pablo
Darren England and his assistant did flag Trossard’s tussling with Pablo to Kavanagh but failed to show the referee the whole incident, instead just focusing on where he was at the time Pablo made contact with Raya.
The transcript proves that the assistant VAR, Akil Howson, voiced his concerns over everything else happening the box in the build up to the foul in question, and even asked how they would be explained if the goal is ruled out, saying: “Let’s say we’re saying that’s a foul, then what are we saying about Trossard’s actions on the same player? What are we saying about Declan Rice behind?”
Howson was doing his best to raise his concerns about the wider picture, adding: “I agree, it’s impactful, it’s just everything else that’s going on as well.”
A minute or two later, when Kavanagh is told to review Trossard’s actions, he is not shown Trossard dragging Pablo down and preventing him from making a fair aerial challenge for the ball and, probably, forcing him into fouling Raya due to being unbalanced. Not at any point did Trossard look in the direction of the ball, his focus was always on Pablo.
But Kavanagh wasn’t shown that, so was unable to make a fair judgment on the incident. That might explain why he said, in response: “I don’t think there’s much in that at all, I’m happy with that. That’s nothing.”
Of course, he didn’t see anything wrong with it, because what he was shown was Trossard’s position after he’d fouled Pablo, not during.
“Give me a clue.”
One of the biggest questions I have from the transcript is why Kavanagh is asking his colleagues to give him a clue when they’re asking him to consider fouls by Arsenal players in the same incident.
He says: “I don’t know what you’re trying to show me, give me a clue.”
What does that mean? Kavanagh was being shown the same replays everyone else was seeing, yet the professional Premier League referee needed to be given a clue on what he was seeing.
That is probably the most concerning part of the transcript, as well as the clue he was given wasn’t the whole picture and led to him not being able to make the right decision.
It’s a bad look for VAR technology
While Pablo did foul Raya and they made their decision based on that foul, the transcript of the incident shows that the technology does not work in the way it was intended.
It was brought in to fix clear and obvious errors, yet what it has done here specifically is allowed them to hyper-analyse one moment in a sea of many and caused them to miss at least one, but arguably more clear and obvious errors in the build-up.
What’s more, it shows an assistant VAR questioning how the decision will be explained, given everything else they’ve seen, but essentially being ignored, and an on-field referee asking for help with what he’s being asked to review. Then he isn’t given the sufficient help he asked for.
That raises serious questions about the validity of the technology, as well as the consistency in which decisions are being made while using it.
West Ham will feel robbed and the incompetence shown in the transcript could cost the club its Premier League status.
But at least the Premier League will get new name on the trophy, which is in line with their ‘strategic plan.’
