Кей Матч Инцидентс зөвлөлийн дүгнэлтээр шүүгчийн болон VAR-ын алдаатай шийдвэрүүд Премьер лигийн багуудын онооны хүснэгтэд өөрчлөлт оруулж байна.
Премьер лигийн 2026/27 оны улирлын эхний долоон тоглолтын дараах нөхцөл байдалд тулгуурлан шүүгчийн алдаатай шийдвэрүүдийг тооцсон “VAR хүснэгт”-ийг гаргажээ. Энэхүү судалгаагаар Манчестер Сити баг хүснэгтийг тэргүүлж байгаа хэдий ч Эрлинг Холандын Манчестер Юнайтедийн эсрэг оруулсан гоолыг буруу тооцсон гэж үзвэл тэдний оноо 21 биш 19 байх байв.
Ливерпүүл баг шүүгчийн шийдвэрээс шалтгаалан хүснэгтийн тавдугаар байрнаас дөрөвдүгээр байр руу дэвшиж, хоёр оноо нэмж авах боломжтой байсан бол Брентфорд мөн нэг байр урагшилж, тавдугаар байрт бичигдэхээр байна. Судалгаагаар нийт 13 багийн байрлал бодит хүснэгттэй ижил хэвээр үлдэж байгаа ч онооны хувьд тодорхой өөрчлөлтүүд гарчээ.
“VAR хүснэгт”-ийн “азтай” болон “азгүй” багуудыг тодорхойлохдоо шүүгчийн болон VAR-ын алдаатай шийдвэрүүд тухайн багийн эсрэг эсвэл талд гарсан эсэхийг тооцсон байна. Одоогийн байдлаар Брайтон гурван алдаатай шийдвэрээр хамгийн “азгүй” баг болж байгаа бол Сандерленд дөрвөн алдаатай шийдвэр өөрийн талд гарсан үзүүлэлтээр хамгийн “азтай” багт тооцогдож байна.
Премьер лигийн албан ёсны мэдээлснээр энэ улиралд шүүгчийн гаргасан шийдвэрүүдийн 89 хувь нь зөв гэж үнэлэгдсэн бол VAR-ын оролцоотойгоор энэ үзүүлэлт 98 хувьд хүрсэн байна. Гэсэн хэдий ч Кей Матч Инцидентс зөвлөл шүүгчийн болон VAR-ын хамтарсан алдааг илрүүлж, багуудын бодит оноотой харьцуулсан дүн шинжилгээг долоо хоног бүр олон нийтэд хүргэж байна.
Дэлгэрэнгүйг эх сурвалжаас харах
↓Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
The ‘VAR table’ has revealed that two Premier League sides are the ‘luckiest’ and ‘unluckiest’ in England.
The ‘VAR table’ uses rulings from the Key Match Incidents Panel, made between Gameweeks 1 and 7, that dissect major Premier League decisions.
The KMI Panel, which consists of five individuals that are selected on a rotational basis, was created in 2022 and convenes each week to look at key English top-flight incidents.
READ NEXT: Arsene Wenger now looks like a genius after what he said about Man City cheating 15 years ago
How does the ‘VAR table’ work?
The KMI Panel analyses each major decision by reviewing the actions of the referee, then the VAR. Its members consist of three former players or coaches, and a representative from both the Professional Game Referees (Pro Ref) and the Premier League.
Results from the KMI Panel are made publicly accessible one week after the conclusion of each meeting, and 10 days after the Gameweek in question.
As it stands, Manchester City, Arsenal, Brighton and Chelsea make up the Premier League table’s top four, in the order of reading.
Enzo Maresca’s men boast a 100% win rate, having taken 21 points from seven matches, and have cushioned themselves three points above reigning Premier League champions Arsenal.
But how would the Premier League standings look if referee and VAR errors didn’t exist?
The ‘VAR table’ standings — Premier League 2026/27
Thirteen teams in the ‘VAR table’ would remain in identical positions to those they assume in the actual Premier League standings, however, that does not mean their points totals are unaffected.
Manchester City would maintain their English top-flight perch, but the KMI Panel’s ruling that Erling Haaland’s match-winning strike versus Manchester United was incorrectly awarded means that the Cityzens would be on 19 points, not 21, and without their seven-in-seven start.
As a result, their goal difference would also decrease from +12 to +11, and put Arsenal just one point behind in the Premier League table’s second position.
Brentford are also ‘VAR table’ beneficiaries, jumping from sixth to fifth. A KMI Panel ruling felt that the referee should have intervened and awarded the Bees a penalty in their 1-1 draw versus Leeds.
While it remains unclear whether Brentford would have converted that penalty into a match-winning goal, failure from the referee and VAR working in combination is reflected in the hypothetical table.
Liverpool would jump from fifth to fourth, benefitting from a KMI Panel ruling of three to two in favour of Nottingham Forest being incorrectly awarded a penalty during a 2-2 Anfield draw.
As a result, the Reds would have prevailed 2-1, gaining two points and leapfrogging Chelsea.
In Gameweeks 6 and 7, the most controversial decision that the KMI Panel voted to be incorrect was Crystal Palace’s second goal in a 3-1 comeback win against Nottingham Forest.
The Panel deemed that the referee’s decision to not chalk off the goal as the result of a handball was incorrect “on the balance of probabilities,” three votes to two.
However, Nottingham Forest were unaffected by the decision for the purposes of the ‘VAR table,’ as they still would have lost 2-1.
The Premier League said, after the Panel’s most recent report from Gameweek 6: “There have been 114 Referee KMIs, with the panel deeming 89 per cent of on-field decisions correct, compared with 86 per cent at the same stage last season. Following VAR intervention, 98 per cent of decisions this season have been deemed correct.”
Brackets in the ‘VAR table’ refer to points total changes from the actual Premier League standings, not position changes.
- Manchester City: 21 points (-2)
- Arsenal: 18 points (Unaffected)
- Brighton: 16 points (Unaffected)
- Liverpool: 14 points (+2)
- Chelsea: 13 points (Unaffected)
- Brentford: 12 points (+2)
- Everton: 9 points (Unaffected)
- Leeds: 9 points (-1)
- Hull City: 9 points (Unaffected)
- Ipswich: 10 points (Unaffected)
- Manchester United: 8 points (Unaffected)
- Newcastle: 8 points (Unaffected)
- Aston Villa: 8 points (Unaffected)
- Crystal Palace: 7 points (Unaffected)
- Bournemouth: 6 points (Unaffected)
- Tottenham Hotspur: 6 points (Unaffected)
- Coventry City: 6 points (Unaffected)
- Fulham: 5 points (Unaffected)
- Nottingham Forest: 4 points (Unaffected)
- Sunderland: 4 points (Unaffected)
READ NEXT: The highest-paid player at every Premier League club in 2026/27
Which teams have had the most incorrect decisions go against them?
Often, the KMI Panel decides that the referee’s decision was incorrect; however, VAR intervention that upholds the referee’s incorrect decision is, bizarrely, correct. This is because VAR can uphold an incorrect decision if the referee’s decision was ‘not clear and obvious.’
For example, when the referee’s decision to award Crystal Palace’s second goal versus Nottingham Forest was deemed incorrect, the Panel also decided that VAR’s intervention to uphold his decision was correct, as “the footage readily available… doesn’t show conclusive evidence of a handball.”
For the purposes of the VAR table, these decisions are treated as incorrect, and a failure of both the referee and VAR working in combination.
The following table operates similarly to goal difference. As each Gameweek passes by, this table will be updated to display whether a team has faced a KMI Panel-adjudicated decision that went either for or against them.
For example, if it is deemed by the Panel that Liverpool suffered an incorrect decision, either by the referee or by the VAR, this would classify as -1. If Liverpool were the beneficiaries of an incorrect decision, this would classify as a +1.
If a team receives one of each in the same game, an incorrect decision that goes for them, and an incorrect decision that goes against them, their error ‘goal difference’ would be zero.
As things stand, Brighton are the unluckiest team in the Premier League, having suffered three more incorrect decisions for them than against them. Sunderland are the luckiest side in the English top-flight, enjoying four additional incorrect decisions in their favour.
For a team to be aggrieved by an incorrect decision, they do not always need to have been failed by both the referee and the VAR, just one of them.
- Sunderland +4
- Nottingham Forest +3
- Everton +1
- Aston Villa +1
- Tottenham Hotspur +1
- Crystal Palace +1
- Bournemouth +1
- Chelsea -1
- Manchester United -1
- Fulham -1
- Hull City -1
- Manchester City -1
- Brentford -2
- Brighton -3
All six remaining Premier League teams have an error ‘goal difference’ of 0. This means that they have had an equal number of incorrect decisions for and against them.
