Thread by @DaleJohnsonESPN

It's time for the Monday VAR thread, on a Tuesday, and this week's there's only one show in town: penalties.

- Explaining "clear and obvious"
- How decisions are reached
- Monitor not there for "another look"
- Weekend's incidents

It's a long one this week...

Let's just preface this by saying the weekend saw an exceptionally high number of key incidents involving challenges inside the area.

It wasn't just an ordinary weekend with some questionable decisions.

8 penalties given across 9 games (one by the VAR) and many other claims.

There were errors, but the unusually high number of penalty-box KMIs (key match-changing incidents) feeds a certain narrative.

To say the same borderline subjective decisions, which cause huge debate, don't happen in other competitions is to ignore the reality of VAR.

There's dislike of "clear and obvious" for a decision to be overturned, but it's not going to go away.

Why? Because no matter what system you use, changing a subjective decision will always be a subjective decision by the VAR too. The VAR must think "that's wrong".

Overturns, ultimately, come down to the 23 referees who act as a VAR.

On a borderline call, if you sit those 23 referees down not all will agree on a clear and obvious error.

It's the nature of a subjective decision and why absolute consistency isn't possible with VAR.

Some want the VAR to just change a decision if THEY think it's wrong.

But every major subjective decision would be made by the VAR, with the game no longer refereed by the referee.

And you still might not get the decision YOU want. It's still subjective.

We saw in the first season of VAR the problems when monitors weren't being used.

The authority of the ref is undermined, as any decision could be unilaterally changed by a man in a room in west London.

It's not effective, and why clear and obvious will remain.

So what does clear and obvious mean?

When an incident happens, the VAR asks the referee to describe what he saw.

If the replays show a clear discrepancy, that's grounds for a review.

But if they fit the referee's subjective description, there will be no review.

And this is where the "high bar" comes in. The higher the bar, the less the subjective opinion of the VAR himself comes into a decision.

But all 23 VARs still have to judge that subjective point for an overturn. And some refs will naturally be better than others at being a VAR.

We still heard managers this weekend say a ref should "go have another look".

It's a common misconception, but it's NOT what the monitor is for.

When the VAR advises an overturn, he is telling the referee there is clear and obvious error and the decision should be changed.

A VAR overturn will be rejected only couple of times a season. It's the same in ALL comps. Prem refs are not acting differently.

Why? Because it's not "another look". The ref is approving the overturn. The monitor is to sell the decision, and for the ref's game management.

So if the decision is already made, isn't this the same as the VAR controlling major decisions?

Sort of, but the final decision still remains with the match ref AND the referee's own decision is the benchmark - rather than only the subjective opinion of whoever may be the VAR.

It's not a perfect system, but with the vast majority of decisions being subjective there are always going to be contentious incidents with VAR - everywhere.

Weekends like this can and do happen in all the VAR leagues. And all leagues are still learning and trying to improve.

So that's a massively extended start to this week's thread. But I thought it was worth trying to set the scene for what's to come.

Let's start the weekend review with initiating contact, specifically the difference between two incidents.

Leicester took the lead against Newcastle with what looked a definite penalty, but replays showed that James Maddison initiated contact from Jamaal Lascelles.

A replay of the challenge is at the end of the highlight.

Judging initiating contact isn't always easy, but in a case like this when a challenge hasn't really been made, it looks a strong case for an overturn.

But the VAR, Paul Tierney, decided there was enough from Lascelles for the penalty to stand.

This is when a VAR's subjective opinion is important.

Tierney believed Lascelles' action, in placing his leg towards Maddison, meant a penalty wasn't a clear and obvious error.

But Maddison is the one who has caused the contact. It should be overturned for initiating contact.

Which brings us to Liverpool's penalty against Aston Villa.

Mo Salah's actions are very different to Maddison.

This is not initiating contact, it's using your body position to get in front of an opponent and draw a foul.

Initiating contact is when you move your leg onto an opponent who either isn't making a challenge and/or would not make contact with the challenge.

But here Salah simply gets ahead of Mings, who then brings him down.

There is no chance of a VAR overturn once given by the ref.

On we roll to a couple of decisions at Wolves.

First, it is impossible for Max Kilman to give away a penalty because the ball hits him around the badge.

In the Premier League, the ball hitting this area has consistently been judged as legal. The lean is therefore irrelevant.

So, the real contentious decision: Man City's penalty.

Joao Moutinho's arm is certainly in an unnatural position, above the shoulder and clearly in a position to block a cross or shot.

So the decision for the VAR, Andre Marriner, is not whether it's a clear and obvious error.

The VAR's role is to try and find definitive evidence the ball didn't hit the arm.

It's a black and white decision, and the deflection off the ribs doesn't matter.

Marriner judged he couldn't be certain the ball didn't hit the arm at this point, so the on-field call stood.

I think pretty much everyone doesn't think this was a penalty. Marriner might not have thought it was a penalty either.

But VAR protocol says he has to find no evidence that the ball might have hit Moutinho's arm when raised in a position not expected for the player's movement.

It's a tough call on Wolves, because you can't definitively say the ball DID hit the arm. So no chance the VAR gives a pen if Moss doesn't.

In this case, cancelling the penalty is a much better VAR decision.

NB: This still is BEFORE the ball is adjudged to have hit the arm.

Where next? Burnley vs. West Ham, and the third decision which many will think was incorrect.

Referee Graham Scott was pretty much unsighted, so it has to fall on the assistant, and the VAR, who was Jon Moss.

The only question can be over the motive of Craig Dawson.

Dwight McNeil being unaware of Craig Dawson is irrelevant to a possible foul challenge.

Moss has decided that Dawson has put himself into McNeil to initiate the foul, jumping into the challenge.

Does have Dawson have any interest in playing the ball?

McNeil on Dawson is really a hybrid of the Lascelles-Maddison and Mings-Salah incidents.

Dawson gets in front of McNeil, who definitely makes a challenge for the ball and catches the West Ham player.

Dawson, like Salah, is probably doing so to win the penalty.

It feels more of what penalty should be than, for instance, Chelsea's second against Leeds.

It brings us back to the usual issue - the pitch decision carrying the most weight and the VAR having to use his subjectivity to judge such challenges.

Back to Anfield and the Aston Villa penalty claim.

In short, it mirrors other incidents earlier this season - whereby if a goalkeeper (or defender) gets a touch on the ball, the challenge will have to be excessive for a penalty to be awarded.

Here, Alisson gets a touch on the ball ahead of Danny Ings - just as was the case with Aaron Ramsdale and Hugo Lloris earlier this season.

A penalty won't be awarded by the VAR, and if the referee has given the penalty then the VAR will advise an overturn.

A good example of an excessive tackle when winning the ball was the VAR overturn at Chelsea.

Raphinha gets to the ball first, but it's the way that he challenges Antonio Rudiger with both feet which leads to the VAR overturn.

Right foot only, and there's no penalty.

To finish off the other two incidents at Liverpool.

No chance of a penalty for Sadio Mane as the contact from Matty Cash was minimal.

Yes, there was a hand on the shoulder but not all contact is a penalty and it was never enough for VAR to become involved.

The Andrew Robertson penalty claim is a closer decision.

If Stuart Attwell gives a penalty, I don't think it's overturned.

If definitely fits into the instruction this season where the threshold is higher.

Cash gets a toe to the ball, no question of a penalty then.

So the VAR decides that Robertson has used the secondary contact from Marvelous Nakamba to go down, rather than the contact causing him to go down.

It fits with previous VAR decisions not to give a penalty.

I've explained how the VAR will only get involved in pulling in the box in rare circumstances. It's generally left to the ref.

The VAR, John Brooks, wouldn't have advised a penalty for Cristiano Ronaldo. But he also wouldn't advise it be revoked once given by Darren England.

And FINALLY while we're at Norwich v Man United, no penalty against Diogo Dalot. Arms are tucked into the body.

This is different to Mathias Normann's arm position on the penalty Norwich conceded at Chelsea - well out and almost a save!