Chelsea get their first taste of VAR non-calls at Norwich: Many more await

Chelsea had the first two VAR non-calls go against them on Saturday at Norwich City. There will be many more and many worse as the season goes on.

The old adage tries to comfort us by saying that over the course of the season the calls that wrongly go against you are mostly balanced out by the calls that wrongly go in your favour, so temper your emotions in any given moment. The key word there is “mostly,” especially for a team like Chelsea. For the teams in the top six or the bottom five, the difference between “fully” and “mostly” could be the difference between a Premier League title or being Tottenham; being Champions League or Europa League; or between the Premier League and the Championship.

The introduction of VAR was supposed to close that difference. But after a few weeks in the Premier League – or even after a few years like in Serie A, where Napoli benefitted from a non-call on Saturday – VAR is only adding to the number of calls clubs hope get balanced out along the way.

Marco Stieperman played the Jorginho role for Norwich City, escaping a few early bookings before going into the book for a comparatively light foul later in the game.

Stieperman swiped at the ball as Cesar Azpilicueta took a touch at the top of Norwich City’s box. The ball moved in the general direction of Stiepeman’s foot, which is why Martin Atkinson probably did not call a foul and award a penalty kick.

However, replays clearly showed Stieperman made no contact with the ball and full contact with Azpilicueta’s leg just below the knee. As this was a potential penalty kick situation, it was reviewed by VAR who agreed with Atkinson’s non-call. The evidence – the error – could hardly be more clear and convincing.

Much later in the game, Ben Godfrey’s foot came down directly atop Mason Mount’s foot on a late tackle. Godfrey was not close to the ball in time or space. Cynical interpretations of the replay say Godfrey aimed for Mount’s foot. Play was stopped for at least a minute while Mount received treatment before coming off. This was adequate time for a VAR review, which the situation warranted because it was a potential booking. VAR again agreed with Atkinson’s non-call.

Chelsea, then, already have two calls “owed” them by VAR karma. For full balance, one will have to be a penalty kick.

However, just because the quantity of errant calls balances out doesn’t mean the impact will. Chelsea won against Norwich City, but had they lost, the non-call on the Stieperman foul would have been much more impactful. Rarely will those calls balance out so precisely, if this is even supposed to be some sort of consolation.

VAR’s introduction is creating as many controversies as it is resolving. Some of this is just adjusting to the new system and working out the kinks. But as the Fiorentina – Napoli game showed us, time does not solve everything.

The fundamental philosophical flaw of VAR is that you still have imperfect humans applying increasingly dubious Laws of the Game (e.g., unintentional handballs, the goalkeeper penalty kick rule).

Given the roundly low estimation of Premier League officials, does giving two them of them more time to reach a consensus really seem like a recipe for fairness or accuracy? The issue is rarely time or perception, but judgment.