The Premier League’s Independent Key Match Incidents Panel has upheld contentious decisions in Newcastle United’s win over Arsenal, deepening the rift over VAR’s role in football.

The Premier League’s Independent Key Match Incidents Panel has ruled in favour of Newcastle United’s contentious winning goal against Arsenal, amidst a storm of protest from the Gunners.

Arsenal’s management, led by Mikel Arteta, were left seething over the decision by referee Stuart Attwell and VAR Andy Madley to allow Anthony Gordon’s goal, despite three separate checks for various possible infringements.

The panel’s report indicates that while Newcastle’s Joelinton did make contact with Arsenal’s Gabriel, it wasn’t sufficient to warrant a foul. They wrote that “although Joelinton does have his hands on Gabriel, there isn’t enough to award a foul as Gabriel had made an action to play the ball before any contact,” which is just absurd. Gabriel jumped to head the ball (the action) but was unable to complete that action because he was fouled.

Also, since when has it been OK to foul someone just because they had already ‘made an action to play the ball’?

Moreover, the panel found no conclusive evidence to overrule the goal for the ball being out of play or offside. Remember when they ruled OUT an Arsenal goal because they had no proof Gabriel Martinelli was onside or off? Today, that same reason is being used to allow Newcastle’s goal.

As for the ball out of play, I’ve been watching football for almost 45 years and when you can see that much grass between the ball and the line, the ball has always been treated as out.

This decision, which went 4-1 on the panel’s vote, seems to align with a pattern that some Arsenal supporters perceive as bias, suggesting that the panel would be reluctant to admit any error in goal adjudication, particularly against Arsenal after this week’s media uproar.

While the panel upheld the non-award of a foul and the goal’s validity, they were unanimous in their opinion that Arsenal’s Kai Havertz should have seen red for his 36th-minute challenge on Sean Longstaff, seeing the tackle as dangerous.

Additionally, they conceded that Bruno Guimarães’ action against Arsenal’s Jorginho warranted a red card, albeit with a split decision.

That’s right, they all agreed Havertz should have been sent off but two fifths of them didn’t think a forearm to the head warranted a red card.

The findings have underscored a growing tension between Arsenal and officiating bodies, with the club feeling increasingly aggrieved by decisions that seem to consistently disadvantage them.

This adds fuel to a fiery debate on the effectiveness and impartiality of VAR and the decision-making process in critical match situations as well as the process for acknowledging mistakes after.

Does anyone truly believe they would have made these findings had Arteta been quiet after the match? Perhaps. There is, of course, no way of knowing what goes through their heads as they frequently create excuses to defend their incompetence, resisting any urge to learn from their mistakes.

The panel, consisting of former players, coaches, and representatives from the Premier League and PGMOL, is tasked with providing independent oversight.

Yet, in the eyes of Arsenal and its supporters, their decisions have done little to assuage concerns over fairness in officiating, especially when calls that sway the game’s outcome seemingly fall against them so often.

This episode has undoubtedly intensified the scrutiny on VAR and the decision-making mechanisms in football, as clubs, fans, and pundits call for greater transparency and accountability in the game’s governance.

In a week where we have seen Arsenal screwed by the refs, again, an ex ref claim PGMOL phoned pundits to tell them to tone down their criticism and a media that swiftly rounded on Arsenal on the back of that, is it any wonder Arsenal fans feel like officials and the media are out to get them?

It’s not paranoid if it’s true.