Former top referee now says he'd have given spot kick to Newcastle United on Monday night

The woolly rules of when VAR can intervene came into play again on Monday night as West Ham beat Newcastle United at St James' Park.

Despite being 2-0 down at the time, Newcastle were denied a penalty that could have dramatically changed the game in the second half.

Trying to get on the end of a Jacob Murphy cross, Callum Wilson was wrestled to the ground by Konstantinos Mavrapanos for what looked to be a stonewall penalty.

However, the on-field referee opted not to punish the incident and VAR, bizarrely checked and cleared the incident despite replaying showing that Mavrapanos had hands all over Wilson and clearly blocked him from making an attempt to get to the ball.

Keith Hackett would have given the penalty

Writing for West Ham Zone, former referee Keith Hackett shed some light on why VAR did what they did, but also admitted that he'd have pointed to the spot.

“Over recent years we have witnessed many incidents of grappling in the penalty area going unpunished.

“The PGMOL officials clearly only penalise when the holding is sustained and has an impact on the opponent.

“What this has lead to is inconsistency in holding situations.

“This particular incident is subjective with the on-field referee making a ‘no offence’ decision. His judgement from a well-positioned viewing angle.

“The VAR does not intervene because it is not a clear and obvious error even though the West Ham United defender’s hands and arms are in contact with his opponent. The referee then decided there’s no offence and no penalty kick to Newcastle United.

“It is a subjective decision. It does not fulfil the criteria of a ‘clear and obvious error’.

“We are now seeing on a regular basis that this type of contact going unpunished. In my era of officiating, I would have been pointing to the penalty mark.”

How much contact is 'enough' contact?

What we can gather from that statement is that 'clear and obvious' is anything but. It only applies to the action of the referee, so if he sees the incident and gets it wrong, VAR are now less likely to overturn it ... then what is the point?

Last night, the referee got the decision wrong in the eyes of many, but because he saw the incident, VAR just backed him up. That Premier League X account that explains these decisions claims there wasn't enough contact to justify a penalty. There was enough contact to knock Wilson off balance and stop him from making contact with the ball ... how much more contact do you need?

I give up trying to understand it, it just seems like they make it all up as they go along.