Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Key Match Incidents Panel Backs VAR Decision to Disallow Everton Goal
Wednesday, 30th Sep 2026 11:01

The Premier League’s Key Match Incidents Panel has narrowly backed the VAR decision to disallow Everton striker Thierno Barry’s second-half goal against the Blues at Hall Dickinson Stadium prior to the international break.

Referee Stuart Attwell initially gave the goal but following a review by VAR officials Andrew Kitchen and Josh Smith, the Warwickshire-based official took another look and changed his decision as Brennan Johnson, son of former Blues frontman David, was in an offside position impeding keeper Christian Walton.

The Key Match Incidents Panel viewed the incident the same way as VAR by a margin of three to two, their assessment reading: “The VAR intervention to disallow the goal for interfering with an opponent by Johnson was supported, 3:2.

“Johnson was clearly in an offside position, in very close proximity to the goalkeeper and makes a movement, impacting the goalkeeper’s ability to set and move to the ball. Two panellists felt that Johnson’s position and actions did not impact goalkeeper Walton.”

The decision was widely criticised at the time with many pundits and ex-players arguing that Walton wouldn’t have been able to make a save even without Johnson’s interference.

However, the panel’s report says that’s irrelevant: “The offside law does not require the referee or VAR to determine that the goalkeeper would definitely have saved the shot, only that their ability to play the ball has been impacted.

“In this instance, Johnson's movement and proximity to Walton constitute an offside offence because it affects the goalkeeper’s ability to attempt to play the ball.”

Ultimately, the incident didn’t affect the result of the game with Barry’s first-half goal securing the home side all three points.

The Key Match Incidents Panel also backed the decision to show Blues winger Abdul Fatawu a second yellow and then a red card for simulation, five to zero.

Photo: Matchday Images



Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.



SamWhiteUK added 11:10 - Sep 30
Think we got away with one there. They also got very fortunate with their goal, lol, with the scorer actively trying to get OUT OF the way of the ball. Disappointing to not take anything from that game, especially with the way they spent the whole of the first half gifting us the ball 30, 40 yards out
0

Portman51 added 11:32 - Sep 30
This report and the split decision clarly underlines how much of refereeing is subjective, however detailed the laws and guidance are. Referees should just be allowed to get on with it, for better or worse. Most Ipswich fans I'm sure would have been furious if that decision had cost us a goal.
-1

barcelonablue2 added 11:56 - Sep 30
Have they just deliberately made all the rules complex so people can't call refs out on bs anymore haha

The only thing I sort of agree on is it should discourage this moronic behaviour of players clearly trying to obstruct keepers. Its so unsporting and if the goal is constantly chalked off then the coaching staff who are responsible will stop teaching them to do it.

Please section 12 sub article 4 clause 3 to decide whether this is an allowable comment on refereeing or if it infringes on sub article 6 clause 4.
1

hoppy added 13:33 - Sep 30
The panel also unanimously voted to issue an 8 point deduction to Everton as a result of their earlier decision.
1

Monkey_Blue added 13:59 - Sep 30
SamWhiteUK… Barry’s first goal was a very deliberate deflection in my view. I also think I’d have been raging if that second was our goal and it had been disallowed. I think the VAR situation needs revisiting. They are micro ref’ing games.
-2

Monkey_Blue added 13:59 - Sep 30
SamWhiteUK… Barry’s first goal was a very deliberate deflection in my view. I also think I’d have been raging if that second was our goal and it had been disallowed. I think the VAR situation needs revisiting. They are micro ref’ing games.
-1

GetWelwyn added 14:29 - Sep 30
Simple. Just say anybody in an offside position in the 6 yard box is interfering with play. All VAR then need to do is work out if they're in the six yard box. Cue ruler ......
4

IpswichToon added 14:46 - Sep 30
After Maguire's goal was incredibly allowed, a lot the complaints centred around 'Why should the direction of the shot effect whether it is a foul or not'. It's exactly the same here. Whether or not the goal would have been saved is irrelevant.

Who even wants to open that can of worms to begin with? Subjective calls about whether a ball was already going in before a deflection, whether a keeper would have made a save, did he interfere with play, etc. Let's not invite any more complication to an already horrible VAR experience.
0

armchaircritic59 added 17:57 - Sep 30
Totally irrelevant, after match reviews achieve nothing, I somehow don't think any match result is going to be changed after any review. Best solution by a country mile, get rid of the whole thing except goal line technology and semi automatic offsides, both objective and not subjective, and let referees and assistants do what they've done for many decades before.
-1

MickMillsTash added 23:05 - Sep 30
It's offside - I cant believe that's even a conversation, it worries me 2 people thought it wasn't offside.
The whole interfering with play 'opinion' has been influenced by the same bell-end pundits who once said 'he's been touched in the area so he has every right to go down ' - Shearer, Lineker ignorance !!
"pressure is for tyres and a privilege'' good god!

3

KiwiTractor added 00:26 - Oct 1
Defenders push up to catch opposition players offside, otherwise we have a defender on the line clearing that - offside, no goal - correct decision.
3

PhuketPete added 02:21 - Oct 1
For those who still think the didalloeal was wrong. Suggest look at it this way.

Was Johnson offside? … YES (by a substantial distance)

Was that due to IPS defensive tactic? … YES

Was Johnson continuously and deliberately moving close to and around the immediate vicinity of our GK despite being Offside? … YES

Was the clear purpose/intention of Johnson to distract the GK? YES that was his job at the corner.

Was Walton physically impeded? …. NO - Had he tried to move towards the path of the ball he may have been impeded by the offside player. But what we can’t know is the extent to which CW’s decision not to move was itself due to the distraction.

Conclusion. Whichever way you look at it Johnson deliberately sought to distract whilst offside and constantly moving around very close to CW. which is Interference. He may have got away with it if he was onside - but he wasn’t.

What’s most worrying to me is that two refs disagreed despite obvious fact

1

PhuketPete added 02:22 - Oct 1
Sorry about typo
0

Dissboyitfc added 07:46 - Oct 1
This is nothing like the McGuire incident, not even close, it was deliberate hand ball, and would have been awarded as such anywhere else on the itch, end of!
And as for their goal he was trying to get out of the way!!
0

Blue_In_Boston added 07:53 - Oct 1
Dissboyitfc the same handball incident happened in the Fulham v Man Utd game when a Fulham defender raised his hands to protect his face in the area. Handball wasn't given...
0

Dissboyitfc added 08:49 - Oct 1
Blue in Boston didn’t see that!
0


You need to login in order to post your comments

Blogs 300 bloggers

Ipswich Town Polls

About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Online Safety Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2026