Premier League’s KMI Panel Backs VAR Decision in Everton vs. Manchester United Clash
In the ever-dramatic world of the Premier League, the Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel has once again found itself at the center of a heated debate. This time, the focus is on the VAR intervention that led to the cancellation of Everton‘s stoppage-time penalty against Manchester United last month. The panel has ruled that the decision was indeed correct, much to the chagrin of some fans and pundits.
Let’s set the scene: the match was tied at 2-2 three minutes into stoppage time. Everton’s Idrissa Gueye fired a shot that was saved by United’s André Onana. As Ashley Young moved in for the rebound, he went down, appealing for a penalty. Referee Andy Madley initially pointed to the spot, citing a foul by Harry Maguire. However, after a VAR check by Matt Donohue, Madley reversed his decision, opting instead for a drop ball to the United keeper. This decision denied Everton a golden opportunity to clinch a late winner.
The controversy didn’t end there. Matthijs de Ligt was also seen tugging on Young’s shirt, but the panel’s primary focus was on the referee’s decision to penalize Maguire, which they deemed incorrect. The panel’s vote was unanimous, 5-0, against the penalty decision, and 4-1 in favor of the VAR’s intervention.
According to the KMI Panel’s comments, which were shared with ESPN, “the contact from the defenders doesn’t match the exaggerated fall from the attacker.” Interestingly, no vote was held regarding De Ligt’s actions. However, one panelist expressed concern that “the referee should not have been sent to the monitor as it wasn’t a clear and obvious error due to the foot-on-foot contact by Maguire and shirt pull on Young by de Ligt which wasn’t shown to the referee.” It’s worth noting that the referee did see the pulls by De Ligt, but only from one angle.
The KMI Panel, established at the start of the 2022-23 season, consists of five members: three former players and/or coaches, one representative from the Premier League, and one from PGMOL. Its purpose is to provide an independent assessment of decision-making, rather than relying solely on the views of PGMOL or the clubs involved. The panel’s judgments aim to offer an objective evaluation of all major match incidents.
In the period from Feb. 19 to Feb. 24, no VAR errors were logged for the 11 games played. However, the panel identified two on-field mistakes that didn’t meet the threshold for VAR intervention. Among these, the panel voted 4-1 that Brentford should have been awarded a penalty against Leicester City for Woyo Coulibaly‘s challenge on Kevin Schade, but supported no VAR intervention 4-1.
Additionally, the panel felt that Kevin Danso had been fouled by Dara O’Shea, voting 3-2 that Tottenham Hotspur should have been awarded a spot-kick at Ipswich Town. It was unanimous that the VAR was correct not to intervene.
- Other controversial incidents were supported, including Aston Villa‘s claims for a penalty when Lamare Bogarde appeared to be held back by Chelsea‘s Marc Cucurella. The panel voted 4-1 in favor of the decisions by referee Michael Oliver and the VAR, Paul Tierney, not to give a spot kick.
As the season progresses, the number of VAR errors logged stands at 12, a significant improvement compared to the 24 errors recorded at the same stage in the 2023-24 campaign. This reduction in errors suggests that the system, while not perfect, is moving in the right direction.
Originally Written by: Dale Johnson
