As their seemingly endless season stretches into its 13th month, Chelsea appears to be benefiting from fortunate breaks, though perhaps not the one they most desperately need. For the second consecutive home game, meticulous interventions by the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) proved pivotal for the London giants. Without these crucial calls, the early stages of this season might have unfolded very differently for a team visibly yearning for a summer reprieve.
In their 2-0 triumph over Fulham, Chelsea`s performance mirrored what one might expect from a squad with minimal downtime between the 2024-25 and 2025-26 seasons. Their high defensive line was frequently exploited with alarming ease by Josh King, and challenges they might have comfortably won a year ago now saw them struggling against their opponents. Much of their possession-based play reflected the less effective aspects of Enzo Maresca`s system: aimless meandering that rarely translated ball retention in Fulham`s half into genuine pressure on their penalty area. They played like a team in dire need of external assistance.
Perhaps this was to be anticipated. After all, they were without key player Cole Palmer and faced a more organized opponent than the chaotic West Ham. Following a chaotic yet energetic start, Liam Delap sustained a hamstring injury, becoming the latest player returning from the Club World Cup whose season is likely to be hampered. Maresca has already voiced concerns about his squad`s fitness, highlighting in his pre-match press conference that “our three players with the most minutes last year” — Palmer, Levi Colwill, and Moises Caicedo — were all contending with their own injury woes. Colwill is expected to miss a significant portion of the remaining season, while Caicedo already requires careful management, having only returned to training on Friday after the West Ham victory.
It was a considerable relief for Chelsea that Caicedo was fit enough to start. His brilliant block prevented Timothy Castagne from scoring the opener, and no player on either side matched his 11 ball recoveries. Had he not been diligently neutralizing threats with his characteristic excellence, the game could have taken a vastly different turn.
The Officials Under Scrutiny
Despite his vital contribution, Caicedo was not the most influential figure in this match. That distinction arguably belonged to referee Robert Jones and the VAR team of Michael Salisbury and Scott Ledger. Yes, unfortunately, we must delve into discussions about officiating. Bear with it, let`s get through it.
Twenty-one minutes into the game, Fulham believed they had taken a deserved lead. It was a well-executed counter-attack: Rodrigo Muniz dropped deep, drawing Trevoh Chalobah with him, then spun to release King. The 18-year-old showed remarkable composure, shifting his weight and body position to bypass Tosin Adarabioyo and fire a shot through the defender’s legs. The only lingering question was whether King had strayed offside.
VAR swiftly cleared the offside concern, but then another issue arose. Chalobah remained on the ground after the goal, and replays showed that during his pirouette to make a pass, Muniz had stepped on the Chelsea defender. Jones was directed to his monitor and, after reviewing multiple replays at full speed and in slow motion, concluded it was a “careless challenge.” While not entirely an incorrect interpretation, the furious reaction – with former Premier League manager Chris Wilder on BBC Radio calling it “one of the worst decisions I`ve ever seen from VAR” – highlighted the sentiment that this was not the kind of clear and obvious error VAR is designed to rectify.
Whether Chalobah, by putting his leg in Muniz`s landing space, might have been the careless party remains debatable, much like Marc Guehi`s push during an Eberechi Eze free-kick 13 days prior. The unpredictable nature of VAR has seemingly favored Chelsea this season, a situation not ideal for Maresca, whose team could be three points worse off if remote officials had held a different perspective on these incidents. Under such circumstances, he was unlikely to challenge Jones` decisions but did acknowledge he would have been frustrated had he been in Silva`s shoes.
Silva himself was visibly stunned. An hour after the final whistle, he stood by his dugout, attempting to regain his composure rather than risk saying something in his press conference that might lead to a touchline ban. After a heated exchange with Jones at halftime, Silva chose to hold his tongue at the final whistle, knowing that losing his temper would be unhelpful. He had to explain to King why the dream moment of scoring, which he had envisioned since joining Fulham as an eight-year-old, had been cruelly taken away.
“He`s going home not understanding why the goal was disallowed,” Silva stated. “I told him to be ready because, unfortunately, many times in the future, you`re not going to understand football. If you are in a Fulham shirt, you`re probably not going to understand many things either. It was a great moment from him. It definitely should not have been disallowed.”
More Disputed Decisions
Analyzing the extensive evidence for the first goal required significant time, which was reflected in the eight minutes added at the end of the first half. It was Fulham`s misfortune that Joao Pedro rose highest to head home a corner in the ninth minute of stoppage time. Marco Silva scowled. “I watched all eight minutes,” he later said. “The game didn`t stop once.” It took every ounce of his self-control to keep ten yards from Jones as his players trudged into the dressing room. They could scarcely believe that things were about to worsen.
Yet, more controversy was to come, courtesy of the small monitor in the West Stand. The handball rule, with its varied interpretations across domestic leagues and UEFA, often feels defined by Justice Potter Stewart`s famous quote: “I know it when I see it.” And most observers recognized that Ryan Sessegnon had handled a Trevoh Chalobah cross. But what about the ball brushing against Joao Pedro`s arm in the build-up? Or Caicedo`s stamp on Alex Iwobi?
“It`s handball from Sess, but before that, you can easily find two or three fouls for ourselves,” Silva argued. “Our players went to the screen – they shouldn`t have, but they did – and they were laughing. A stamp on Iwobi, handball from Pedro, pushing and blocking, and nothing comes from the VAR.”
This process hardly feels like an optimal experience for anyone at Stamford Bridge, or indeed watching worldwide, let alone for those on the pitch, witnessing someone else meticulously scrutinizing every blade of grass for the slightest infringement that might alter the game`s trajectory.
That is precisely what transpired today. Before this match devolved into 40,000 spectators watching Jones watch replays, Fulham had been the superior side, poised to exploit a fatigued Chelsea. When Enzo Fernandez converted the penalty, the visitors showed little fight on derby day. They couldn`t rally themselves for a late push.
“An outstanding first half from us,” Silva commented on his team`s display. “We dominated the entire half; we were clearly the best team on the pitch. Brave on the ball, very difficult for Chelsea to press in the way we knew they would. We found the spare player, and from that moment, we created good attacking opportunities. It was a very good first half that didn`t conclude as we desired.”
It`s no surprise Silva repeatedly described his experience as “unbelievable.” His team had not been defeated by their opponent but by the officials` interpretation of key incidents. While this might be justifiable in cases of clear referee error, in a low-scoring sport, a difference of opinion on a debatable incident can fundamentally alter a game`s outcome. VAR was never intended to re-referee matches from miles away.
Consequently, the very nature of the game was drastically changed. Today`s match might have raised critical questions about how Chelsea plans to maintain player freshness through September, let alone an entire season. Instead, we are once again plunged into further debate about the merits and drawbacks of video intervention in football.
