Well two things there
a) as we know a touch on the ball doesn't always negate a foul challenge - especially in this case where the ball brushed the outside of the defender's leg and
b) the touch, slight as it is was, was only spotted by VAR after several replays and then MO had to go over and peer at a screen to spot it himself.
My point is that whatever you and I think of the decision(s) they were not clear and obvious errors by all sensible criteria.
I have recently heard both Head of Refereeing at UEFA and Howard Webb on the RA zoom meeting explain how VAR is there as a back stop for referees to stop incidents like the Thierry Henry handball - but the way it is being used now is a far cry from the narrative being used by those in charge justifying its use.
I think that it's a very difficult balance to find. I agree we don't want referees going to the monitor 7 or 8 times a game but equally we want to get the best decision possible.
I think sometimes the media and some fans, etc. lack maturity when discussing referee decisions. There have been a lot of cases where either:
1. VAR has not intervened in something - people will say 'Don't you think that was actually a penalty?' 'What's the point of having VAR if they're not going to use it?' 'Why not let the referee look and make his own decision?'
2. When VAR does intervene - 'Even if you agree with the decision, do you think it was 100% a clear and obvious error?'
I think there's often a very thin line between 1 and 2, and it's rarely black and white. People use the phrase 50/50 split but obviously that doesn't mean every person is in t wo minds about what to give. It just means there's not a full overall consensus, which is something you can largely only find out subsequently.
My view on Saturday was that the Aston Villa one wasn't a penalty. That was Chris Kavanagh's view seemingly and then Michael Oliver's after reviewing the footage. I think that is a credible decision, although equally I can understand the opinion of those who say it is, and the fact it's a 50/50 debate only really becomes clear after as the two officials won't know that at the time. Ultimately, they are paid and trained to use their judgements to make what they feel is the best decision and both have done that, and I think it is a reasonable decision personally.
People often reference the likes of Thierry Henry handball as why VAR was introduced but I think that's only part of it. I remember when England conceded a penalty against Italy in a friendly before 2018 World Cup and Rusty Ref said 'I thought that's why people wanted VAR?' It seems to me that the bigger criticisms of VAR since being introduced, certainly to England, have been (outside the handball/tight offside) of VAR being used too little rather than too much.
Danny Makkelie has been one of the best VARs I've seen. I can recall a few cases where people have said 'I think the officials made a good decision using VAR in the end, although perhaps you could ask if it was 100% clear and obvious?'
Let's imagine a referee's original decision is 95% 'wrong' I think certainly last season the VAR would probably use the 5% slight justification to not intervene, even though the vast, vast majority of people watching probably feel it's wrong and the referee most likely will either. I think the strongest VARs will intervene in such situations so that the 'best' decision has more chance of being made (this is where the monitors are much more useful.) If the referee's still in the 5% and wants to stick with their decision then so be it.
