3 hours ago
23
Howard Webb, the man in charge of Premier League officiating, has drawn a clear line in the sand on how Video Assistant Referee technology should be used: fix the obvious errors, leave everything else alone.
The chief refereeing officer at Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) has been vocal about raising the threshold for when VAR steps in, arguing that subjective judgment calls belong to the referee on the pitch, not the one watching replays in a darkened room at Stockley Park.
A disallowed goal sharpens the debate
Webb’s latest push for restraint came after a September 3, 2025 match between Chelsea and Fulham, where a Fulham goal was disallowed following VAR intervention. Webb publicly labeled the decision a “misjudgement,” which is a polite way of saying the system did exactly what he’s been telling it not to do.
The incident became a case study in what Webb considers bad VAR usage. Rather than correcting a factual error, like a ball clearly crossing a goal line or an offside measured in meters, the intervention overturned a call that fell squarely in the gray zone of referee interpretation.
This philosophy has been a recurring theme in Webb’s appearances on Sky Sports’ “Match Officials Mic’d Up” series, where he has broken down multiple refereeing incidents from the 2025-26 season. The show gives Webb a platform to explain the reasoning behind decisions, and he’s used it consistently to reinforce one message: good VAR corrects the undeniable mistakes, bad VAR tries to referee the match by remote control.
The tension at the heart of VAR
When the Premier League introduced VAR for the 2019-20 season, the pitch was simple. Technology would catch the howlers, the goals that should never have stood, the penalties that were pure fiction. Fans would get fairer outcomes, and referees would get a safety net for the moments when the game moves faster than human perception allows.
Webb, who took the PGMOL role in late 2022, inherited this tension. His response has been to try to push the pendulum back toward trusting the referee standing 15 yards from the action over the one sitting behind a monitor.
PGMOL’s principles now prioritize a high threshold for contact penalties, a policy designed to keep the game flowing rather than turning every bit of physical play into a potential stoppage.
What counts as a clear error?
Webb’s framework essentially divides refereeing decisions into two buckets. The first is factual: was the ball over the line, was the player offside, did the handball happen inside or outside the box? These are questions with definitive answers, and VAR is well-suited to answer them.
The second bucket is subjective: was the contact enough for a foul, did the defender play the ball before catching the attacker, was the challenge reckless or just firm? Webb’s position is that VAR should generally leave these alone unless the on-field referee has made a decision so far removed from what the footage shows that it qualifies as an obvious mistake.
The bigger picture for officiating
By publicly calling out the Fulham-Chelsea intervention as a misjudgement, Webb is trying to set a visible standard. He’s telling his own officials that overreach will be scrutinized just as much as inaction. That’s a meaningful shift from the early VAR years, when the pressure on video officials was almost entirely in one direction: intervene more, catch more, correct more.
The challenge for Webb and PGMOL is turning a philosophical position into consistent practice across dozens of officials working hundreds of matches. And as the Chelsea-Fulham incident showed, even under Webb’s leadership, the system doesn’t always follow its own rules.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
English (US) ·