Apart from the handful of match officials who are away on international duty, most of them will spent the next fortnight with their feet up.
And some may be advised to spend their spare time reading up on the rules of the game they claim to be officiating because, judging by last weekend’s action, they could do with brushing up their knowledge.
At the Emirates, Hull City defender Nobel Mendy pulled Kai Havertz back by his shirt inside the penalty area. Farai Hallam went to the pitchside monitor on the advice of VAR Michael Oliver and confirmed that Mendy had committed a holding offence. He then awarded Hull a free-kick because Havertz was in an offside position.
The distinction between an offside position and an offside offence is central to Law 11. If a player moving towards the ball is fouled before playing it, attempting to play it, or challenging an opponent for it, the foul takes precedence. The footage suggested that Mendy had hold of Havertz before the Arsenal forward could make a play for the ball. If Hallam saw an offside offence before the shirt pull, his announcement should have said what Havertz had done to commit it. Simply saying where he was standing explained very little.
At Elland Road, Leeds defender Jayden Bogle caught Mathys Tel on the Achilles. John Brooks gave a foul and kept his cards in his pocket. After a four-minute VAR check, Tony Harrington decided against sending Brooks to the monitor. Tel was forced off before half-time, and Tottenham said they would lodge a formal complaint. Only a week earlier, Crystal Palace’s Jean-Philippe Mateta had been sent off for a similar challenge against Spurs.
Whether a tackle endangers an opponent’s safety is a matter of judgement. Law 12 makes clear that a challenge which does so warrants a red card. The point of contact made a strong case for sending Bogle off. Even on the VAR’s reported assessment that the tackle was reckless, the law calls for a yellow card. A VAR check for a possible red cannot be used simply to award a booking, which makes Brooks’s original decision all the more difficult to defend.
Referees will always make mistakes at full speed. Supporters can understand that. What is harder to accept is a lengthy stoppage followed by an explanation that leaves out the decisive part of the law, or a challenge dangerous enough to merit four minutes of scrutiny yet apparently unworthy of a second look by the referee. If the Premier League wants supporters to trust these decisions, its officials need to explain how the law led them to the outcome.
At the moment the evidence suggests they are unable to provide such explanations because they themselves do not understand the laws.
