Thread by @DaleJohnsonESPN

It's your Monday VAR thread, and it's not really as controversial as the "noise" may have suggested.

Looking at:
- Penalty incidents in Arsenal v Man City
- Penalty incidents in Watford v Spurs
- Red card incidents in Chelsea v Liverpool
- Overturns
- Quick offside recap

Let's start by making one thing clear.

Saying "if the ref looks at one he has to look at both" or "if one's a penalty they both are" just doesn't make any sense.

People try to put different incidents into the same box. Usually, you can't. It's not about consistency.

On the Arsenal v Man City incidents, it's perfectly acceptable for anyone, individually, to think that one, both, or neither should be penalties.

But whether one, both, or neither are sent to the monitor, the process involved is unique to that incident, and its merits.

A reminder of the thread of a few weeks ago which explained the process behind "clear and obvious".

The monitor isn't there to "have a second look".

And that means the VAR must feel he has found clear evidence the ref has made a mistake.

Unfortunately there's no TV rights of the individual incidents I can embed. They were tweeted just as a post-match discussion, and anyone who saw that will know why I won't be using it.

But we'll start with the possible penalty to Arsenal, and why it wasn't given.

On the first replay we saw, I thought it was a penalty. On subsequent angles, I thought Ederson got the ball ahead of Martin Odegaard.

So, there wasn't clear evidence of a definite foul.

At the time, the TV commentary team also agreed it should stay with the on-field call.

Not until HT did the broadcaster zoom in and with super slow mo find the evidence.

Odegaard stood on Ederson, with the keeper knocking the Arsenal player's foot onto the ball.

It should have been a penalty, but that doesn't make it a VAR penalty.

We have seen three angles, showing that it may or may not have been a penalty.

If the VAR sends the ref to the monitor he would only show him the evidence that his decision was wrong (ref can ask for other angles), because the monitor is really there to overturn decisions.

If the VAR isn't certain an angle provides all the evidence, he can't definitively say the ref has made a mistake.

Therefore, it can both be a penalty, but not for VAR to get involved.

(NB: Irrelevant that Odegaard stood on Ederson as the challenge impedes the attacker)

That leads us into a quick discussion about the monitor, and refs rejecting reviews.

Last season, 5 were rejected at the monitor in the Premier League. In the Bundesliga, it's usually around 2-3 per season.

But this year it's 0 in the PL, which points to two things.

Either:

1) The bar is so high in the Premier League that an incident sent to review is never likely to be rejected

or

2) There has been an encouragement to accept all reviews, though the ref would always have the final decision

We'll see if we get rejections.

While the system should mean that it's very rare that a VAR review is rejected, it still seems unusual we have had zero in the Premier League this season.

And last season, one of the rejected 5 was actually an incident very similar to Ederson and Odegaard.

Liverpool's Fabinho tackled Fulham's Ivan Cavaleiro in the box.

No penalty given by Andre Marriner.

The VAR, Lee Mason, advised a penalty.

Marriner rejected the review.

It was probably a penalty but many believed it shouldn't have gone to a review.

Granit Xhaka on Bernardo Silva is also interesting.

Remember the protocol. The ref describes the incident and the VAR sees if there's an error.

The referee, Stuart Attwell, saw the challenge by Xhaka but not the tug on the shirt. So a review comes into play.

If Attwell saw the initial contact, how consequential was the tug? Did Silva's actions fit with the reaction of the attacking player?

It seems the penalty has come from the combination of the two challenges by Xhaka, rather than one of the two.

The vast majority seem to agree with the VAR on the Man City penalty, but I wasn't sure at the time it passes the threshold.

Sticking with no penalty may have been the better decision (on both) - but there is a clear argument for the penalty and many will disagree.

So why do the two differ?

Ederson: Lack of definitive proof (without forensic analysis) that the foul took place.

Xhaka: Definitive proof the foul took place, only a question of what the referee saw and if what he missed was enough to advise a penalty.

The "definitive proof" element brings us to Watford v Spurs, and Hugo Lloris on Joao Pedro.

If you take this image, it seems it had to be a clear penalty to Watford.

But it's what comes before that's important.

As mentioned regularly, the question is whether the goalkeeper got a touch first. Any contact after this would have to be reckless for a penalty to be awarded, per protocol.

Of these three, the penalties to Burnley and Everton were overturned, while Villa no pen decision stood.

The Joao Pedro decision is tough. It's impossible to tell for sure who touched the ball - but the direction it runs at least suggests Lloris did get something on it.

So like Ederson, without evidence that Lloris only got the man, the ref's decision won't be changed.

On the Eric Dier being wrestled by Juraj Kucka:

- Such off-the-ball tussling has generally been left to the on-pitch referee
- The referee deemed both were fouling
- Is the ball in play when the foul takes place? If so it couldn't be a penalty and that would be checked

On to Chelsea vs. Liverpool. Sadio Mane was obviously very lucky not to get sent off, and had Anthony Taylor shown a red card it definitely wouldn't have been overturned.

So by what process does the VAR, Darren England, not advise a red card?

One of the questions the VAR must ask himself is whether the on pitch sanction is acceptable. Can a yellow card be awarded for this offence?

I've been told (not by PGMOL) that as Mane didn't connect with the elbow and there wasn't real force, that saved him from a VAR red card.

Most people believe it should have been a red card, and that was probably the better decision.

Would Mane have been sent off if the game weren't 15 seconds old? It shouldn't make a difference but it often does.

With Mason Mount on Konstantinos Tsimikas, the Chelsea man should have been booked for adopting an aggressive attitude.

He definitely pulled his foot out from Tsimikas in an aggressive manner, but there's no chance the VAR would advise a red for something like this.

No doubt about the other two overturns.

- Clear handball by Luka Milivojevic, with the referee Darren England thinking the ball hit above the handball line on the arm

- Definite push by Enock Mwepu on Anthony Gordon for the penalty

Final couple of tweets on offside, because I feel this needs to be underlined.

Nothing has changed since the start of the season. Benefit of the doubt is still applied when the defensive and attacking lines touch.

Here are two examples from August, and two from December.

In the Harry Kane example, it is more difficult to see because of the angle of the camera.

If the lines touch, the line automatically goes green for onside. This wasn't the case.

This is about consistency across all VAR offsides, and not what the camera angle might suggest.

This method was adopted universally in every league this season after the exact same process was used at Euro 2020.

It's not the Premier League "going back toenail offsides".

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and right now every league and competition has marginal calls.

The images in the VAR hub are of much higher quality than you get on your TV or on social media.

So the compressed, low quality images (sometimes paused on someone's TV!) that get shared on Twitter often do not tell you the true story.

And to bring the thread back round to the start, it's also pointless to compare two and say they both should be onside.

The consistency of the tech method means every offside is different. Players will never be in the same position - no matter what the angle tells you.

This is not to say people should shut up and just like these VAR offside situations, etc, but it is what it is, and every league has them.

The new system has seen far less controversy for offside. BUT there will always be the marginal decisions.