Thread by @DaleJohnsonESPN

It's your Monday VAR thread! This week:

- Explaining the process of the Newcastle-Fulham penalty
- Red cards
- Few handballs
- A brief return to offside

First, the Newcastle penalty which resulted in a red card for Joachim Andersen via VAR.

The main questions and comments have centred around:
- It was outside the box!
- Why wasn't the referee shown replays?
- How can it be a red card if it's a penalty? (double jeopardy)

First, a reminder of the VAR process.

The ref will explain why he has given the decision, and the VAR will check replays for a clear and obvious error.

So, if ref Graham Scott says Andersen has clipped Callum Wilson's foot, does the VAR have reason to support that?

Replays showed that Andersen clipped the bottom of Wilson's foot inside the area. It was very slight, but the contact is there.

So if Scott says that is the reason he gave the spot kick, then the VAR (Andy Madley) has reason to say this isn't a clear and obvious error.

Perhaps the real question should be whether the referee thought the contact on the boot was as slight as it was.

Surely that could be considered an error, and a foul (if any) on Wilson (minimal tug?) was outside the box?

Once the VAR confirms contact is inside the box, he can consider a possible red card for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity.

It's important to note that double jeopardy doesn't apply when a player makes no attempt to play the ball, regardless of intent.

It's highly probable that Wilson would have had a goalscoring opportunity.

That said, we shouldn't even ended up here.

Andersen was already on a booking and, if you are giving the foul, this would seem a certain second yellow given the relative position of the players.

This leads us to the explanation of why Scott was only shown one angle by the VAR.

Scott was only reviewing a possible red card, not the penalty decision itself.

A valid question is why, on such a marginal decision, he couldn't review both if he's doing the red anyway.

There can be no doubt about the VAR red card for Jake Livermore, and few have argued against that shown to John Lundstrum.

Livermore's challenge had a horrible lunging motion to it and the only surprise is Martin Atkinson didn't spot it live.

With Lundstram, it's the force and intensity of the tackle. The ball gets away from him and he is too eager to win it back.

He's unfortunate, but intent no longer exists in the LOTG. It's all about endangering the safety of an opponent - regardless of a touch on the ball.

Which brings us to Dani Ceballos and Kortney Hause, both of which were not given as red cards.

This all comes down to the VAR's judgement of force and intensity. This kind of contact happens every weekend, but the point of contact alone doesn't make it a red card.

There are loads of examples of this kind of contact. It's a subjective call from the VAR about which tackles cross the threshold of excessive force.

Of these four only one (Aubameyang) was judged a red by the VAR due to the force and intensity.

There were a few handball penalty claims this weekend, most notably against Raheem Sterling.

So why was this different from the penalties given against Robin Koch and Matt Doherty earlier in the season, when the ball rebounded off the body?

With Sterling the ball isn't going towards goal, or blocking a cross / shot. It's probably given in September. (Doherty's wouldn't be given now).

With Koch, it directly blocked a shot on goal so is viewed differently.

I appreciate why fans can't understand the handball law...

Finally, offside. There's little point going over this time and time again. The process is what it is, with all its flaws.

First Maddison. When Sky switched to the VAR feed, as shown, the offside line had already been placed on Aurier. The process was not broadcast by Sky.

Sky did broadcast the process as a second line was drawn to Alderweireld, who was shown to be in advance of Aurier.

When tech says offside, that's that.

It's not a close decision by VAR standards. Red and blue lines don't touch, so it's still offside with Dutch margin of error.

It's similar with the disallowed Ollie Watkins goal.

I agree there is a valid question about the placement of the line to the defender's arm.

It would be a lot closer but would not change the decision, as the gap between the lines indicates.

The change in handball law to make the upper arm valid for offside added another key level of manual subjectivity.

Measuring the armpit was simple, but using an imaginary point on the arm leads to inconsistency.

Measurement point looks different on the other Watkins offside.

The offside line could be in a different place on every VAR decision because there is no set position on the arm. It's an imaginary line.

Which is why, for consistency and reliability, AI offside VAR cannot come soon enough.

espn.co.uk/football/fifa-…