da blaze casino： PGMOL chief Howard Webb has revealed that several major changes in VAR are in the pipeline for the Premier League amid ongoing controversies.

da betsul： Article continues below

Article continues below

Article continues below

Referees to explain their decisionsChange still needs PL's ratificationCould be introduced from the 2024-25 campaignWHAT HAPPENED?

Webb announced that the PGMOL are working on a plan for referees to explain their decisions directly to stadium crowds and television audiences, if they make any changes to their original decision, after consulting the VAR monitor. The proposed change awaits approval from the Premier League and the authorities are aiming to introduce this change as early as the next season, to offer greater clarity and transparency in officiating to the fans.

AdvertisementGETTYWHAT WEBB SAID

During his appearance on , Webb said: "When you hear the clips on shows like this it makes sense what's happening; it all becomes apparent. We're looking at ways to improve the in-stadium experience.

"One of the things you'll have seen maybe in FIFA tournaments, like the Women's World Cup, is announcements from the referee once they've been to the screen. So we're looking at that, we're keeping an open mind about whether that's something we could utilise in the Premier League. It would be really useful for the referee to be able to speak to all of the people in the stadium [to explain] the rationale."

THE BIGGER PICTURE

The International Football Association Board (IFAB), responsible for football's laws, initiated a successful 12-month trial of this approach in international tournaments before incorporating it into the Laws of the Game. Several leagues, including Liga MX, MLS and the Australian A-League, have already adopted this policy. During the Women's World Cup, FIFA learned that the explanation should be followed by the decision, not vice versa, and the Premier League should follow the same course of action. However, IFAB remains firm that real-time conversations between the VAR and the on-field referee will not be made public through broadcasters.

WEBB ADMITS VAR ERROR IN NOTTINGHAM FOREST VS EVERTON

Webb also acknowledged a significant Video Assistant Referee (VAR) error in Nottingham Forest's 2-0 defeat to Everton earlier in April, highlighting a missed penalty call in the 55th minute when Callum Hudson-Odoi was fouled by Everton's Ashley Young.

The contentious match saw Forest express discontent over three penalty decisions that went against them, raising doubts about the integrity of VAR referee Stuart Attwell. Attwell is a supporter of Luton Town, who are involved in a relegation battle with Forest. As a consequence of Forest's reaction, the Football Association is anticipated to levy charges against the club.

In response to the uproar, the Premier League's Independent Key Match Incidents Panel conducted a review, concluding that only the challenge on Hudson-Odoi warranted a VAR intervention.

"We did hear [referee] Anthony Taylor in the footage there say that he believed the ball had been played by Ashley Young, and we know that's not the case," Webb explained. "We know only Callum Hudson-Odoi touches the ball.

"The first job of the VAR is to look at the footage available and make the judgement, 'Was the on-field decision clearly wrong?' You could have a situation where the referee describes that the ball has been played by the defender. But actually when the VAR looks at it, sees that's not the case, but it's still not a penalty. It might be that the attacker has simulated, for example.

"So you can't only rely on what the referee is saying to make the judgement of whether something is clearly and obviously wrong. But if there's a VAR, you're looking at it thinking, 'Is it clearly wrong or not?' You can absolutely factor in what the referee says as well. And if there's a particular aspect like, 'Who's played the ball?' it's an important aspect that can be factored in to give the confidence to the VAR that, 'Yes, the referee needs to go to the screen because I believe this is clearly and obviously wrong.'

"And that's what should have happened on this occasion. But primarily they're there to look at the footage and form an opinion. Is the on-field decision clearly wrong in their professional judgement? We would have preferred such an intervention in this case."