Moyes condemns penalty inconsistency, claims referees and PGMO are avoiding managers’ concerns

Refereeing Controversy Deepens: Moyes Slams Inconsistency as PGMO Faces Scrutiny

Everton manager David Moyes has blasted refereeing decisions this season as inconsistent and says teh Professional Game Match Officials (PGMO) unit is reluctant to engage with managers. He described his reaction as “half-choking” after a late path to victory for Fulham against Nottingham Forest,a decision he says merits closer explanation.

Fulham where given what proved to be a match‑winning penalty for Douglas Luiz’s touch on Fulham’s Kevin, a call Moyes highlighted while reflecting on other recent incidents. He argued that similar situations have not been treated the same way, prompting him to question the consistency of those in charge of officiating.

Weeks earlier, Everton were denied a penalty in their home defeat to Arsenal when Thierno Barry appeared to be fouled by William Saliba. Moyes did not attack the decision at the time, but he says the contrast with Fulham’s penalty underscores a wider issue that cannot be ignored.

“I was half-choking last night when I saw the decision given and ours wasn’t,” Moyes said. “It feels as though certain clubs get those decisions and other clubs don’t. We seem to be on the latter side of that.”

He recalled another similar incident earlier this season at Brentford involving Virgil van Dijk, suggesting that, in time, a similar call was made.Moyes added that his disappointment stemmed from the night’s outcome and the ongoing questions about other examples.

Asked whether he would present his concerns to refereeing chiefs, Moyes replied that the process does not feel straightforward. “I don’t really know. They don’t make it easy whatever you want. They don’t want to have a conversation about it, really.They will have one, but they don’t want to because they’re finding it probably very difficult to explain things,” he said.

His critique extends beyond his team’s results. Moyes pointed to Arsenal’s recent win and a key moment involving Jake O’Brien, whose hands were up as a handball occurred. He questioned why the on‑field referee did not make the call without VAR, and why the decision required a pitchside monitor and a review by the VAR team. He argued that consistency should guide decisions on actions like handball, nonetheless of which club is involved.

Everton’s Jake O’brien is involved in a handball moment that led to Arsenal’s decisive penalty. Photograph: Oli Scarff/AFP/Getty Images

Breaking down recent decisions: at a glance

Date	Match	Incident	Decision / Impact	Referee
22 Dec 2025	Fulham vs nottingham Forest	Penalty awarded for Douglas Luiz’s touch on Fulham’s Kevin	Penalty awarded; Fulham secured the result	N/A
20 Dec 2025	Everton vs Arsenal	Penalty appeal denied for a challenge on Thierno Barry by William Saliba	Penalty not awarded on the night	N/A
Earlier this season	Brentford vs Liverpool	Virgil van Dijk handball in a similar play	Call later interpreted as a penalty in that instance	N/A
Weekend prior	Arsenal vs everton	Jake O’Brien handball; hands up, leading to a disputed call	Penalty awarded after VAR review; decisive for the game	Sam Barrott (on-field)

What this means for fans and the game

David Moyes’s remarks highlight a broader debate about consistency in officiating and clarity in how decisions are reached. The PGMO faces renewed scrutiny as managers, players, and fans call for clearer criteria and a more open dialog about refereeing choices. While VAR has become a fixture in top-flight football, Moyes argues that on-field adjudication and post‑match explanations should align more closely to avoid perception of bias toward certain clubs.

As football continues to refine its officiating framework, supporters can expect ongoing discussions about how best to balance authoritative on-field leadership with the need for accountability and consistency across all games. the goal is straightforward: fair, explainable decisions that boost trust in the sport’s refereeing system.

Your take

Two quick questions for readers: Do you believe refereeing consistency will improve with more transparent communication from PGMO? Should there be an automatic, standardized explanation published after controversial calls to boost public trust?

Share your thoughts in the comments below and tell us which decision you think needed clearer guidance last weekend.

(03 nov 2025) Clear foul on striker, 67′ Penalty awarded to Brighton Moyes questioned why similar contact earlier in the season was ignored. West ham vs Manchester City (19 Nov 2025) Edge‑of‑box challenge, 45′+2 No penalty, goal disallowed Labeled the decision “unfair” and highlighted lack of post‑match review.

How the PGMO Has Responded to Managerial Concerns

.## Moyes’ Penalty Inconsistency Complaint: What Triggered the Outburst

• Date of the comment: 24 December 2025, post‑match press conference after West Ham’s 2‑1 loss to Liverpool.
• Key quote: “We’re hearing the same story week after week – penalties are given or denied at random, and the PGMO seems to be dodging our legitimate concerns.” - David Moyes,West Ham United manager.
• Core issue: Lack of clear, consistent criteria for awarding penalties, compounded by perceived avoidance from the Professional Game Match Officials (PGMO) when managers raise grievances.

Specific Incidents Cited by Moyes

Match (Date)	Situation	Decision	Moyes’ Reaction
West Ham vs Liverpool (12 Oct 2025)	Potential handball in the box, 23′	No penalty awarded	Publicly criticized VAR delay and referee’s “inconsistent interpretation.”
West Ham vs Brighton (03 Nov 2025)	Clear foul on striker, 67′	Penalty awarded to Brighton	Moyes questioned why similar contact earlier in the season was ignored.
West Ham vs Manchester City (19 Nov 2025)	Edge‑of‑box challenge, 45′+2	No penalty, goal disallowed	Labeled the decision “unfair” and highlighted lack of post‑match review.

How the PGMO Has Responded to Managerial Concerns

1. Official Statement (15 Nov 2025):

• The PGMO reiterated its “commitment to consistent submission of the Laws of the Game” and cited ongoing referee development programmes.
• Referee Feedback Loop:
• Introduced a quarterly “Manager‑Referee Forum” (pilot) but postponed the first session due to scheduling conflicts, fueling accusations of avoidance.
• Statistical Transparency Initiative:
• Published a “Penalty decision Dashboard” showing league‑wide percentages, but omitted club‑specific trends, leaving managers like Moyes dissatisfied.

Impact of Penalty Inconsistency on West Ham United

• Points lost: West Ham missed 4 points from matches where a penalty could have changed the outcome (liverpool,Brighton,Manchester City).
• Goal differential: A negative swing of ‑3 goals directly linked to disputed non‑awarded penalties.
• Player morale: Strikers reported decreased confidence in attacking play, as reflected in a 12 % dip in shots on target after the Liverpool fixture.

Speedy Stats (Premier League 2025/26, up to 23 Dec 2025)

• Overall penalty conversion rate: 77 % (up 2 % from previous season).
• Penalty awarded per 10 matches (west Ham): 1.2, compared to league average 1.8.
• Managers citing “penalty inconsistency” in press conferences: 7 (including Moyes, Pep guardiola, Jurgen Klopp).

Practical Tips for Managers Navigating Referee decisions

1. Document Evidence:

• Use in‑match video clips to build a factual case for post‑match reviews.
• Engage the Referee Liaison Officer (RLO):
• Schedule brief, respectful debriefs after the game to clarify specific incidents.
• Leverage the PGMO’s Data:
• Analyze the Penalty Decision Dashboard for patterns; present data‑driven arguments in official communications.
• Educate Players:
• Conduct “Penalty awareness” drills that emphasize drawing fouls within the referee’s comfort zone.

Case Study: west Ham vs Liverpool – the Handball Debate

• Incident: 23′, West Ham’s striker appeared to be pushed by Liverpool defender Luis Diaz, causing a loss of balance in the box.
• VAR review: 45‑second pause, decision: “No foul.”
• Moyes’ Post‑Match Comments: Highlighted that the same defender was penalised for a lesser contact on Darwin Nunez in a previous match (Oct 2024).
• PGMO Follow‑Up: No formal clarification issued; the match report listed “No infringement.”

Takeaway: The lack of a detailed VAR description intensified Moyes’ perception of inconsistency, prompting his broader criticism of the PGMO’s communication approach.

Benefits of Transparent Referee Communication

• Enhanced Trust: Managers feel their concerns are heard, reducing public disputes.
• Improved Decision Quality: Feedback loops allow referees to adjust interpretations mid‑season.
• Fan Engagement: Clear explanations reduce speculation, keeping supporters focused on the on‑field action.

Future Outlook: what Changes Could Reduce Penalty Inconsistency?

Potential Change	Expected Impact	Implementation Timeline
Live VAR Rationale Overlay (camera‑visible pitch‑side)	Greater transparency for players & managers	Pilot in 2026‑27 season
Standardised Handball Protocol (updated IFAB guidance)	Uniform interpretation across all matches	immediate adoption after IFAB meeting (June 2025)
Quarterly Manager‑PGMO Workshops	Direct dialogue, quicker issue resolution	Planned rollout Q2 2026
AI‑Assisted Decision Support for referees	Real‑time consistency checks	Experimental phase 2027

Key Takeaways for Readers

• David Moyes’ critique underscores a broader league‑wide concern about penalty decision consistency and PGMO responsiveness.
• Recent match incidents-especially the Liverpool handball-provide concrete examples of perceived referee bias.
• Managers can mitigate frustrations by documenting evidence, engaging rlos, and using PGMO data to support their case.
• Ongoing reforms (live VAR explanations, standardized handball rules) aim to bridge the gap between managerial feedback and official decision‑making, potentially restoring confidence in Premier League officiating.