Thread by @DaleJohnsonESPN

It's the Monday VAR thread, which this week will no doubt bring on the hate.

Including:
- Sheffield United penalty process at Liverpool
- Maguire vs. Azpilicueta
- Disallowed Arsenal goal
- Monitor use recap
- And more

Starting with Sheffield United's penalty at Liverpool for Fabinho's foul on Oliver McBurnie.

Contrary to what was reported in some places, the tackle was reviewed. In fact, there were three possible outcomes available to the VAR, who was Andre Marriner.

Outcome 1: Free kick to Sheffield United - challenge adjudged outside the area

Outcome 2: Penalty to Sheffield United - challenge deemed inside the area and a foul

Outcome 3: Dropped ball to Alisson - challenge deemed inside the area and NOT a foul

So now we know the possible outcomes, you need to look at the process.

First of all, the VAR needs to determine where the foul took place. Because if the foul took place outside the area, the VAR cannot intervene.

The position of the ball is irrelevant. All that matters is the position of McBurnie.

McBurnie has his right foot on the line of the box. The line belongs to the penalty area.

Therefore, the only possible outcome for the VAR is this is a now a penalty review.

We now know the decision is either:

- penalty to Sheffield United
- dropped ball to Alisson

Fabinho plays the ball, but this certainly doesn't mean it can't be a foul. Fabinho goes through McBurnie's standing leg so you cannot say it's a clear and obvious error by Mike Dean.

It's a VAR decision that looks more controversial than it actually is.

The position of the foul is a factual decision which falls to the VAR and doesn't require Dean to use the monitor.

These kind of challenges are penalised all the time in the modern game.

On to the penalty that never was for Harry Maguire's WWE move on Cesar Azpilicueta. Quite simply, it's a penalty.

Holding was defined in the LOTG this summer as "when a player’s contact with an opponent’s body or equipment impedes the opponent’s movement". This is a clear case.

Azpilicueta was unable to play the ball due to the holding contact by Maguire, which enabled the United defender to get in front of his opponent and clear the ball.

It was a simple decision that the VAR should have easily made.

But it WAS reviewed. There is a misconception that if you don't see the review, then a review hasn't happened.

Quite often, as was the case here, a review takes place while the game continues. And the broadcaster - who controls the pictures - won't switch from live action.

The VAR for United v Chelsea game was Stuart Attwell.

Last weekend, Attwell gave Palace a penalty for holding by Tariq Lamptey on Michy Batshuayi. The contact was minimal.

So when Attwell doesn't give this penalty as the VAR a week later, that raises questions of process.

And this brings us back around to the high bar, the use of monitors and how VARs are refereeing to an imaginary point rather than independently of the match referee.

While the VARs have got the vast majority of decisions correct, we still don't have the process correct.

In 56 Premier League games this season, there have been only SEVEN subjective interventions (discarding handball).

- 2 penalties
- 1 penalty rescinded
- 3 red cards
- 1 red card rescinded

And not once has the referee rejected the advice of the VAR after monitor review.

As I've said before, the nature of VAR means most reviews will be upheld at the monitor. And not every decision should go to review.

However, the clear perception right now is that not enough decisions are going to the monitor.

We want to SEE the referee take ownership of more of these decisions. It's key the ref is seen to uphold his own decision at times.

Otherwise, we are in the same place as last season on red cards, whereby monitor use is only a confirmatory process. They are window dressing.

So, we have VARs trying to work out where the high bar is on challenges such as Pickford and Maguire.

The VAR should simply be deciding, "this is clearly a red card offence or penalty."

Instead, it seems like the VAR is trying to fit each challenge onto an imaginary scale.

It is impossible to reach absolute consistency with subjective decisions, but this system can only lead to inconsistency in reviews.

VARs are clearly lacking the confidence - or authority? - to advise on-field reviews. Is this down to poor refereeing, or Mike Riley's choice?

Onto the disallowed Arsenal goal vs. Leicester. I'd say this was probably quite tough on the Gunners, but overall and with the decision given on-field by the assistant it was probably correct.

But there has been way too much focus on the position of Kasper Schmeichel.

There is obviously absolutely no doubt Granit Xhaka was in an offside position. But does he commit an offside offence?

Just because Xhaka didn't touch the ball doesn't mean there is not an offside offence.

While there is an assessment of how much Kasper Schmeichel's ability to play the ball is impacted (whether he would actually save it is irrelevant), the effect on Justin is more telling.

Justin hesitates in an attempted clearance because of Xhaka's position (video next tweet).

This video shows Justin's hesitation in playing the ball (and entertaining that Andy Gray doesn't even notice it). Xhaka clearly impacts Justin.

However, maybe a monitor review with the ref sticking with the decision is better optics....

Everton have no chance of winning an appeal against Lucas Digne's red card (in my opinion).

Intent is no longer in the laws, so it doesn't matter if accidental. All that matters is the force and nature of the challenge. Very similar to the Aboubakar Kamara red for Fulham.

The alleged handball against Tomas Soucek is now irrelevant as it was not Soucek who created the goal for Michail Antonio. Same as the Kai Havertz handball when Chelsea equalised at WBA.

Have to say I'm not even sure it hits Soucek's arm.

And four weeks to the day since our last handball penalty example, the Andy Robertson incident most definitely will not be given now.

Would it have been given in the first three weeks of the season? Quite possibly.