Fair Play and Fair Points
Measuring Officiating Impact through MDDs and the Case for a Challenge System in the Premier League
“The Table doesn’t lie!”
On January 18, 2025, Arsenal fans in the stadium watched in disbelief as Kai Havertz’s goal against Aston Villa was ruled out correctly for an unintentional handball following a VAR review. The decision not only erased a critical 3-2 lead but also left fans frustrated by a lack of clarity in the officiating process. This moment became emblematic of a growing issue in the Premier League: the profound impact of officiating decisions on match outcomes and league standings.
Arsenal’s 2024/25 season provides a compelling case study. By mid-January, the club had been subject to 10 Match Distorting Decisions (MDDs) across 22 games—7 against and 3 in favour—resulting in a net loss of 5 points (see Appendix). Such decisions raise fundamental questions about fairness and whether mechanisms like a challenge system could improve transparency and accountability in the league.
48 hours later discourse continued on a controversial call with one former professional turned analyst citing the following.
“Not just penalties, these decisions are really coming down to deciding factors of an actual game”
“It’s a collective, okay what about a holding call on defence only five yards but you get a first down you get more opportunities, that’s my point, I’m just saying it’s bigger than penalties these are really game impacting decisions or game implications that gives an already good team more opportunity to attack”
The above is in regard to the Kansas City Chiefs v Houston Texans playoff match up on January 18, 2025. The comments are from Cam Newton, Former NFL Quarterback and Heisman Winner.
The theme is the same, elite sport is decided by the finest margins and improvements should be sought to reduce the risk of erroneous MDDs to ensure an equal playing field.
Measuring the Impact of Officiating Decisions
What Are Match Distorting Decisions (MDDs)?
MDDs are officiating decisions that significantly alter the game state. These can be direct actions (most severe), such as goals awarded or disallowed, dismissals, and penalties, or indirect actions (less severe), like erroneous bookings or contentious set pieces leading to goals or dismissals.
Arsenal’s 2024/25 MDD Analysis
Against Arsenal:
Dismissals: Three instances, including Declan Rice’s second yellow card against Brighton for kicking the ball two yards, despite similar actions going unpunished for opposition players.
Goals Disallowed: Four incidents, such as Bukayo Saka’s disallowed goal against Fulham for an offside call on Gabriel Martinelli in the build-up.
Penalties: A controversial penalty awarded against William Saliba versus Brighton, where VAR upheld a decision despite clear evidence to challenge the on field call.
In Favour of Arsenal:
Goals Awarded: Gabriel Jesus’s equaliser against Brentford stood after a VAR review confirmed he was onside.
Indirect: A corner erroneously awarded against Tottenham led to Arsenal’s equalising goal in a 2-1 win.
Quantifying the Impact
By analysing these decisions within their game-state contexts, it’s evident that officiating inconsistencies have directly influenced Arsenal’s position in the league. Without these MDDs, Arsenal would be five points better off, a margin that could prove decisive in title races or European qualification battles.
Extrapolating for the remainder of season on a layman basis Arsenal are expected to face another 7 MDDs with 2 in favour and 5 against.
Remedies to Challenge the Status Quo
Implementing a Challenge System
Why Now?
VAR’s promise of consistent and accurate decisions remains unfulfilled, with fans and players left frustrated by opaque processes and seemingly arbitrary rulings.
Arsenal’s case underscores the systemic issues, with decisions like the 3 dismissals showing how subjectivity, coupled with a lack of consistency and a lack of transparency erode trust.
VAR needs to be used to spot errors which highlights on field referees cannot spot all critical actions on the field of play. The on field official awarded the goal for Kai Havertz, which was an erroneous call.
How It Could Work:
Team-Allotted Challenges: Each team receives a limited number of challenges per game (e.g., one per half), usable only for critical decisions such as goals, penalties, or dismissals (violent conduct).
Transparent Reviews: Challenges trigger a public review process, with live audio explanations from match officials and clear reference to the rules being applied.
Safeguards Against Misuse: To prevent frivolous challenges, unsuccessful reviews could cost teams a substitution or future challenges in the same match.
Learning from Other Sports
Challenge systems have been successfully implemented in high-stakes sports like the NFL and tennis, where steps have been taken to reduce the gaps and consequences of error.
In the NFL, challenges have overturned pivotal calls, such as touchdowns incorrectly ruled out, leading to game-deciding point changes.
New York Giants vs. Green Bay Packers (2007 NFC Championship Game)
Challenge: Brandon Jacobs was initially ruled short of a first down on a crucial fourth-quarter play. Coach: Tom Coughlin (Giants).
Outcome: The review overturned the ruling, giving the Giants a first down. The Giants went on to win in overtime and eventually triumphed in Super Bowl XLII.
New Orleans Saints vs. Minnesota Vikings (2009 NFC Championship Game)
Challenge: A pass to Pierre Thomas was ruled incomplete. Coach: Sean Payton (Saints).
Outcome: The call was overturned, and Thomas was awarded a key catch that helped set up the Saints' game-winning field goal in overtime. The Saints went on to win Super Bowl XLV that season.
Green Bay Packers vs. Dallas Cowboys (2014 NFC Divisional Round)
Challenge: Dez Bryant’s fourth-down catch 4th Quarter 4:42. Coach: Mike McCarthy (Packers).
Outcome: The review overturned the catch, ruling that Bryant did not complete the process of the catch. The Packers won 26-21.
In tennis, Hawk-Eye technology has allowed players to overturn erroneous line calls, directly influencing the outcome of crucial matches and titles.
Venus Williams vs. Lindsay Davenport (Wimbledon 2005 Final)
Situation: Late in the third set, Venus was trailing but hit a ball that was called out, giving Davenport a potential break.
Challenge Outcome: Venus challenged, and Hawk-Eye confirmed the ball was in. Venus went on to save the game and eventually won the match in one of the most thrilling Wimbledon finals in history.
Novak Djokovic vs. Roger Federer (US Open 2010 Semi-Final)
Situation: Djokovic faced match point against Federer at 4–5 in the fifth set. Federer hit a forehand that was initially called in.
Challenge Outcome: Djokovic challenged, and Hawk-Eye showed the ball was out. This overturned the call and kept Djokovic alive in the match, which he went on to win in a stunning comeback.
Rafael Nadal vs. Daniil Medvedev (Australian Open 2022 Final)
Situation: Nadal was battling back from two sets down. During a critical game in the fourth set, a Medvedev shot was called in, giving him a breakpoint.
Challenge Outcome: Nadal challenged, and Hawk-Eye revealed the ball was out. The point reversal helped Nadal retain his service game, maintain momentum, and eventually complete the historic comeback to claim his 21st Grand Slam title.
Novak Djokovic vs. Stefanos Tsitsipas (French Open 2021 Final)
Situation: Djokovic, down two sets to love, challenged a Tsitsipas forehand that was called in during the third set.
Challenge Outcome: Hawk-Eye revealed the ball was out, and Djokovic used the critical moment to turn the tide of the match. He came back to win in five sets, completing one of the most remarkable comebacks in a Grand Slam final.
These examples underscore how challenge systems can ensure fairness without significantly disrupting gameplay, but crucially highlights how a single call can affect the momentum and the trajectory of titles.
Most alarming is that elite sport has implemented such a system for over 20 years, where titles have been decided on such calls, yet football lags behind with a current lack of appetite to evolve.
Rationale for a Challenge System
Transparency and Trust
The Premier League’s lack of public explanations for key decisions fosters confusion and alienates fans. A challenge system with live broadcasts of the review process would bridge the gap between officiating teams and spectators, fostering greater understanding and trust.
Accountability and Consistency
Knowing their decisions could be challenged would encourage officials to adhere to higher standards and provide clearer reasoning, reducing the frequency of contentious calls.
Long-Term Benefits
Fan Engagement: Transparent officiating enhances the viewing experience and strengthens fan loyalty.
Integrity of the Sport: Addressing inconsistencies ensures that results are determined by player performance rather than officiating errors.
Global Reputation: As the world’s most popular football league, the Premier League must lead in innovation and fairness.
Conclusion: The Call for Change
The introduction of VAR aspired for fairness and accuracy, but inconsistent application has left fans and teams disillusioned. Arsenal’s 2024/25 season highlights the urgent need for reform. By adopting a challenge system, the Premier League can ensure that officiating decisions align with the principles of transparency, accountability, and integrity.
As Johan Cruyff stated
"Football is a game of mistakes. Whoever makes the fewest mistakes wins."
Perhaps this quote was directed at all stakeholders of the game including officials, and if so football should allow itself the right to challenge and learn from its mistakes across the board.
Appendix: Arsenal’s Match Distorting Decisions (MDDs) in 2024/25 Season at Matchday 22
