The one-sentence answer
The 2026/27 EPL KMI panel is a five-member independent panel that reviews referees’ on-field decisions on major match incidents and VAR interventions under separate criteria, publishing its results weekly on the Premier League website and official app.
In the first published Match Round 1 results, 21 Referee KMIs were reviewed. The panel judged 90% of on-field decisions to be accurate. Decisions after VAR interventions were judged to be 100% accurate, and both of the two VAR reviews were considered correct overturns.
Background: Weekly publication begins in the 2026/27 season
The KMI panel was introduced in the 2022/23 season. Its review targets major incidents that can affect the flow and result of a match, including penalties, sending-offs, offside decisions, and goal decisions. After in-stadium verification and post-match analysis, the Premier League and Pro Ref jointly finalize the review list according to pre-established criteria.
Starting in the 2026/27 season, the panel’s results will be posted weekly on the website and official app. However, the results are published one week after the panel meeting, so there may be a time lag between the latest match round and the published KMI results.
Weekly results are assessments made after post-match review and a panel meeting, not an immediate record of decisions made just after the match.
Key concept: A five-member panel and two-stage voting
The KMI panel is a five-member independent panel consisting of one Premier League representative, one Pro Ref representative, and three former players or coaches. The panel first votes on whether the referee’s on-field decision was correct. If it decides that the referee’s decision was incorrect, it conducts a second assessment: whether the incident met the VAR intervention threshold of a “clear and obvious error.”
Because of this structure, the on-field decision assessment and the VAR intervention assessment can produce different results. Under the Premier League’s VAR criteria, the referee’s initial decision is maintained unless the evidence shows a clear and obvious error. Therefore, the fact that the panel considered an initial referee decision inaccurate does not, by itself, mean that VAR should necessarily have intervened.
Examples confirmed in the first round
In the Brighton & Hove Albion vs Aston Villa match, the on-field decision not to award a penalty for McGinn’s challenge on Osman was judged inaccurate by a 4–1 vote. However, the judgment that VAR’s decision not to intervene for the same incident was not a clear and obvious error passed by 3–2.
In the same match, the on-field decision not to send off Gomes for violent conduct was judged inaccurate by a 0–5 vote. VAR’s intervention to recommend a red card was judged correct by a 5–0 vote.
In the Manchester City vs Bournemouth match, the on-field decision to disallow a goal for Gvardiol’s offside was judged inaccurate. By contrast, VAR’s intervention to award the goal was judged correct by a 5–0 vote.
These examples show that two questions must be separated when reading KMI results:
- Was the referee’s initial decision on the field accurate?
- Did the decision for VAR to intervene or not intervene meet the relevant standard?
What it means now: Focus on the decision standards, not just an “error list”
The 90% on-field decision accuracy and 100% accuracy after VAR interventions in Match Round 1 are figures from separate assessment areas. They should not be combined into a single referee or VAR error rate, nor should the KMI panel’s majority view automatically be treated as an absolute ruling.
The KMI panel’s role is to independently review major decisions and publish the reasoning behind its assessments. Because on-field evaluations and VAR intervention assessments use different voting procedures and criteria, the same incident can produce the conclusion that “the initial decision was inaccurate, but VAR’s non-intervention was permissible under the standard.”
BBC Sport also describes the KMI panel as a five-member independent body that evaluates major decisions from a match round, and has reported VAR and refereeing error statistics based on past results. When consulting such material, it is important to first identify what each figure evaluates and which standard applies.
What to check: How to read the official weekly results
When checking weekly KMI results, first find the relevant post on the Premier League’s official website or official app. When a full decision list is attached, as with Match Round 1, the PDF can be used to review the incidents by match, the on-field votes, whether VAR intervened, and the panel’s commentary.
Use the following order:
- Confirm which Match Round the result covers.
- Review the total number of Referee KMIs and the on-field decision accuracy figure separately.
- Distinguish the number of VAR reviews from the accuracy of decisions after VAR intervention.
- Check the on-field vote and VAR intervention vote for the incident you are interested in.
- Account for the one-week delay after the panel meeting and check the time gap from the latest round.
Ultimately, KMI panel results are closer to a review record that separates the referee’s initial decision from the VAR intervention standard than to a simple list definitively stating “who was wrong.” Reading the weekly posts published from the 2026/27 season together with their attached PDFs makes it possible to assess Premier League refereeing debates against official evaluation standards and actual examples.