Whisper it quietly, but the statistics say video assistant referee decisions have been pretty good in the Premier League so far this season.

The Key Match Incidents (KMI) Panel, which looks at every contentious decision and votes whether it is right or wrong, reported just two VAR errors after eight rounds of matches.

At the same stage last season, there had been six mistakes.

Then came this weekend, during which almost every top-flight game had a controversial decision.

BBC Sport looks at most of these situations - there really were too many to do them all - and assesses the likelihood that the KMI Panel will add to the list of errors.

Incident 1: Penalty awarded to Manchester United for a foul by Boubacar Kamara on Matheus Cunha in the 16th minute.

Verdict: The spot-kick was awarded because the Villa defender went through Cunha to win the ball. Replays clearly showed the first contact was on the Brazilian's foot.

What the KMI Panel might say: This will be a correct decision.

Incident 2: Possible foul by Senne Lammens on Aston Villa goalkeeper Zion Suzuki before Patrick Dorgu's 96th-minute equaliser.

Verdict : There are similarities to a goal Arsenal scored at Old Trafford last season, when William Saliba leant into United goalkeeper Altay Bayındır.

Lammens was not looking at the ball, which increases the chances of a VAR intervention.

What the KMI Panel might say: With the higher bar for an intervention in the Premier League, and minimal contact, it is unlikely to be a VAR error not to disallow the goal.

Incident: Kai Havertz was pulled down inside the area by Nobel Mendy. The VAR, Michael Oliver, sent referee Farai Hallam to the pitchside monitor for a penalty, but it was not given due to an offside offence by the Germany international.

Verdict: BBC Sport covered this incident in detail on Saturday. As the foul happened before any potential offside offence, the penalty should have been awarded.

What the KMI Panel might say: Even though it feels wrong to reward a player in an offside position with a penalty, the law says otherwise and this is likely to be a mistake.

Incident: Jayden Bogle fouled Mathys Tel, with referee John Brooks giving the free-kick but no sanction for the Leeds player. The VAR, Tony Harrington, opted not to send Brooks to the monitor for a red card.

Verdict: BBC Sport covered the merits of this incident on Saturday. It was a difficult call for the VAR, because Bogle caused the foul with his supporting rather than his challenging foot. Still, it was a very painful challenge and some believe it should have been a red card.

What the KMI Panel might say: Was it an unfortunate incident, or a tackle which endangered the opponent? This will depend upon which former players are on the KMI Panel for this week, because it has split opinion among ex-pros.

All three incidents were covered in more detail by BBC Sport on Friday.

Incident 1: Coventry's Caleb Yirenkyi appeared to have his hair pulled inside the area by James Tarkowski, but no penalty was awarded.

Verdict: While the interpretation on hair pulling was relaxed for this season, meaning this would not be a red card, there appeared to be a yank of the hair by the Everton defender.

What the KMI Panel might say: Incorrect decision, penalty kick.

Incident 2: Another penalty claim for Coventry as Everton's Vitalii Mykolenko clipped Taiwo Awoniyi on the edge of the box.

Verdict: Replays shows that the contact on Awoniyi was made just before the line.

What the KMI Panel might say: Correct decision, no penalty.

Incident 3: Thierno Barry put Everton in front in the 61st minute, but there was a VAR check for a potential handball.

Verdict: The VAR determined there was no conclusive evidence for a handball, yet there does appear to be a deviation and the goal probably should have been ruled out.

What the KMI Panel might say: As the VAR does not have the super-zoom - this takes a few minutes to calibrate and is not available instantly - no VAR intervention might be supported. This was the case with a goal scored by Crystal Palace against Nottingham Forest. It could be a split vote.

Incident: Crystal Palace were awarded a penalty three minutes into stoppage time for a foul by Milos Kerkez on Dario Osorio.

Verdict: We saw a similar incident the 2024-25 season when Arsenal defender William Saliba headed Joao Pedro after the Brighton striker had won the ball. This was voted to be a correct penalty decision.

What the KMI Panel might say: This incident is not quite the same as Saliba on Pedro, and more of a 50-50 clash. It may be voted as an on-field error, but not to the threshold for VAR.

Incident: Cole Palmer went down on the edge of the area under a challenge from both Luke O'Nien and Jules Ahoka, and asked for a penalty. Referee Jarred Gillett did not give a foul.

Verdict: A foul is determined by the first contact on the attacker. That a player falls into the box with contact continuing would not make it a penalty. Only on holding offences is continuing contact relevant.

What the KMI Panel might say: There is no conclusive evidence that any initial foul contact happened inside the area, so no penalty is likely to be supported.

Incident: Newcastle thought they had taken the lead at Craven Cottage, only for the goal to be ruled out for a foul by Yoane Wissa on Timothy Castagne.

Verdict: Matthias Jaissle was perplexed in his post-match interview, yet he would surely be furious if a Fulham player held one of his defenders back to create on onside corridor for another attacker to score.

What the KMI Panel might say: This is likely to be voted as a correct decision.

BBC Sport estimates that there are two decisions which the KMI Panel is very likely to log as a VAR error: not awarding penalties to Arsenal and Coventry.

Two further calls, Barry's goal and the potential red card to Bogle, may be errors but will depend who is on the panel and where their subjective opinion lies.

The others on the list are likely to be correct.

So we are potentially looking at two to four errors, which is not a good weekend.