Thread by @DaleJohnsonESPN

Welcome to another Monday VAR thread. Some protocol bits to explain around some decisions. Fill yourself with rage.

Including:
- Timo Werner disallowed goal / Ward-Prowse red
- Penalty to Leeds?
- Watford "goal"
- Tim Krul on Matej Vydra
- Liverpool v Man City incidents

Starting with Timo Werner's disallowed goal against Southampton.

This all comes down to VAR protocol and what constitutes the Attacking Phase, and is something which I particularly dislike about the process.

To begin with, Attacking Phase isn't reset by a failed clearance.

We get one of these in the Premier League every now and again but as VAR in the PL usually doesn't go back too far in the Attacking Phase, it's rare.

In other leagues fouls some way back in the Attacking Phase are penalised far more regularly.

So the following are not considered to reset the Attacking Phase (from IFAB Video Review Protocol):

- A save, deflection or rebound that does not result in control of the ball (by the defending team)
- A clearance that does not reach or is not controlled by a teammate

So when Jan Bednarek (35) cuts out the ball here, and it drops back to Cesar Azpilicueta to cross, rather than a Southampton teammate, it isn't considered a new phase.

If Romelu Lukaku scores from this secondary cross, you can sort of accept the decision.

This is where it gets very subjective, and I'm confident with another VAR (this was Mike Dean) or on another day the goal isn't disallowed.

The question is whether the Southampton defence has reset when Callum Hudson-Odoi collects the ball out wide.

I absolutely think it has.

There have been 3 goals disallowed for a foul this season - the same number as the whole of 2019-20 and 2020-21.

Disallowing this goal after 17 seconds after the challenge, when the ball has already been knocked out of the box from the original move feels too much.

For James Ward-Prowse's red card, his problem is two-fold.

1. He goes in with force
2. With the sole of the boot and studs leading. This is always judged more harshly

In this instance, there is always a high chance of a red card.

On to Leeds vs. Watford, and frankly poor decisions from referee Simon Hooper and VAR Lee Mason.

First, Leeds should have had a penalty for William Troost-Ekong's challenge on Daniel James. There is no intention to play the ball here, only prevent James from doing so.

This is the grab which shows why Simon Hooper disallowed the Watford "goal."

Christian Kabasele does have his hands on Liam Cooper at this point, but they have both been holding each other and in such cases we're told it's 50-50 and there's no foul by either player.

What makes it worse here is Simon Hooper blows just before the ball crosses the line. That means play is already dead and VAR cannot review to award the goal.

And it's not the first time Hooper has blown his whistle just before the ball has crossed the line.

So onto a missed intervention in Burnley vs. Norwich.

There has always been a reluctance to penalise goalkeepers going for the ball unless it's a really bad challenge (see Paulo Gazzaniga vs. Chelsea).

For whatever reason, they have free rein to come out more aggressively.

But in this instance, a penalty has to be a better outcome. We saw this at Euro 2020 with Hugo Lloris. He lightly touches the ball but then connects fully with the head of Danilo.

The referee awarded a penalty and booked Lloris. They are very similar.

What many of these incidents really tell us (along with several others in recent weeks) is there's still uncertainty about when the VARs should intervene when there's a lighter touch.

I think VARs are still second-guessing themselves at times on clear decisions.

Now Liverpool vs. Man City, to explain why VAR couldn't get involved in most of the key incidents in this game.

There's no doubt this should have been a second yellow card for James Milner, but VAR cannot get involved in second yellows and there's good reasons for this.

Firstly, if you have multiple players on a yellow, and possible second yellows are reviewable, it means every challenge by a player on a booking becomes a reviewable incident.

It's felt that this would overstep the line of the "minimum interference, maximum benefit" ethos.

Also, if second yellows are reviewable, what does this mean if the first yellow was wrong? It means a player could be sent off for a second yellow through VAR when the first yellow shouldn't have happened.

The frequency of bookings means using VAR isn't desirable.

On the earlier Milner incident, the foul contact is outside the area so it isn't a penalty and not in VAR's remit. The second contact isn't the foul.

A foul "continuing into the box" is for pulling. For a foul tackle, it's the contact which causes the foul which is used.

That said, there's a shout for a red card here for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

The question for the VAR is whether he feels Joel Matip is close enough to deem it not an obvious goal-scoring chance for Foden.

Milner was lucky to avoid a red on two occasions.

On Newcastle's goal at Wolves, it would have been far better game management by Graham Scott to stop the play so Jose Sa could get treatment.

But it wasn't a foul on the goalkeeper, so VAR can have no role in the goal.

It seems only right that we pay a visit to our old friend, the subjective element of offside. It's now a weekly feature!

In Liverpool vs Man City, Raheem Sterling is not in Alisson's line of vision to the ball from Kevin De Bruyne's shot, and makes no move to the ball either.

But in West Ham vs. Brentford, this is definitely a case whereby if the goal was disallowed on the pitch VAR would not have overturned.

Michail Antonio looks to be in David Raya's line of vision but as he's not close, it's not deemed an obvious error to allow the goal.

And last but not least, it was a clear decision to disallow Everton's late goal at Manchester United.

Yerry Mina was well ahead of the ball when Tom Davies squared the ball to him.