VAR Review: We’re going to hear a lot about the “high bar” in the coming weeks, and two penalty decisions from the opening weekend – including West Ham’s – highlight the difference between perception and practice.
Many discussions have focused on a supposed “higher bar,” but that’s not the case. Howard Webb, the Premier League’s chief refereeing officer, aimed to reaffirm the existing high bar during preseason briefings, rather than suggest the threshold for intervention had been raised.
The confusion may stem from the shift towards using “referee’s call” over “clear and obvious,” alongside efforts to make VAR faster and more efficient. Both are part of a six-point plan to enhance VAR.
The bar remains where it was last season: high, with the intention of intervening only when something clearly stands out. The term “referee’s call” is meant to emphasize that the on-field official remains in control, rather than the video assistant referee.
The idea of being less forensic in reviews has been interpreted as fewer interventions, but the Premier League already has the lowest intervention rate among the top five leagues (0.29 per game). Not overanalyzing applies both to when VAR intervenes and when it doesn’t; it’s about making quicker, more confident decisions, not raising the bar. For instance, a VAR might have taken three minutes last season to decide not to advise a penalty; reducing that time is about making a faster, yet still accurate, decision – not raising the threshold.
In fact, the Premier League has more issues with missed interventions than with over-involvement.
Everton manager Sean Dyche expressed frustration after the game, also referencing the “very high bar” this season, showing that this misunderstanding has spread to clubs as well as the media, and ultimately to the fans.
However, Dyche can’t complain in this instance; this is an example of VAR functioning effectively. Dunk slides in and attempts to block with his right leg, while his left is tucked in on the ground. Calvert-Lewin steps on Dunk’s left foot, causing him to fall. Hooper believes Calvert-Lewin’s foot was swept away, but there wasn’t really a tackle involved.
If Dunk had been actively challenging Calvert-Lewin and his momentum carried him into the striker’s path, the decision would have stayed on-field.
There was speculation on social media that Hooper hadn’t reviewed the incident on the screen. However, the main VAR monitor wasn’t working, making it appear as though Hooper was staring at a frozen screen.
But there’s always a backup monitor on-site, and Hooper was actually using a different screen below him, despite appearances.
