It's Monday VAR thread time! The good, the bad and the ugly. There was me thinking it was a *fairly* quiet weekend, until Graham Scott and Co. intervened.

- Tottenham penalty
- Soft penalties vs. VAR penalties
- Graham Scott

Starting with the penalty to Harry Kane, which was almost identical to the Fabinho-McBurnie incident.

First, there's no doubt the foul takes place on the line of the area, which belongs to the box. These frames show Lallana's knee connect with Kane on the line and continue.

Once the contact is on the line, that makes it a penalty review. The VAR can choose either:

- Penalty to Tottenham (foul)
- Dropped ball to the keeper (clear and obvious error)

There's little chance the VAR would deem this a clear error, so it has to be a penalty.

Which brings us to "soft" penalties. As I always say, the decision of the ref carries the weight. Which is why we have only had two subjective (not handball) VAR pens in 66 games.

Would Grealish, Salah, Kane and Wilson be penalties if the ref hadn't given them? Maybe, maybe not.

In the cases of Grealish, Salah, Kane and Wilson, there's no doubt they have, to differing degrees, made sure they have got the decision.

There was definite contact and a clear reason for the ref to give the decision, so the VAR won't get involved in such subjective calls.

Obviously, with incidents like that of Kane and Salah in particular there is going to be a high-profile reaction.

But, for the most part, the penalty decisions have been pretty consistent this weekend.

That said, Wilfried Zaha should have got a penalty at Wolves, when the VAR, Paul Tierney, deemed no foul.

It's similar to Pogba's challenge on Bellerin on Sunday, given by the ref.

One given, one not.

It's very tough to find that balance, and we're certainly not there yet.

Which brings us to Graham Scott, a referee who most definitely likes the limelight. It's incredible how he didn't give the foul on Hojbjerg.

I've said many times that getting a bit of the ball doesn't not mean a foul isn't possible, so it's odd that he gave this reason to Kane.

So, Attacking Phase of Play. This is an important distinction, as there has been confusion. Immediacy of attacking handball to a goal is not the same as phase on offside or a foul.

Handball = Not phase-related
Offside/foul = Phase-related

The Attacking Phase is very subjective, and there is no definition related to number of passes or time.

In this incident, 13 seconds elapsed and Brighton made four passes, with no opportunity for Spurs to win back the ball.

Using the VAR handbook on Attacking Phase, it's clear that Brighton, as the attacking team, "gained possession as a result of an offence or infringement of the Laws of the Game" and "the referee made a clear error in failing to penalise."

Obviously, from time to time we want a referee to stick with his decision at the monitor.

It shows the system is working and the game isn't just being re-refereed from Stockley Park. There have been a few referees could have rejected, but this was a clear foul.

Another incident at Tottenham was the possible penalty for Leandro Trossard, which will obviously draw parallels with Maguire vs. Azpilicueta.

They were quite different though, as Maguire clearly held down his opponent and stopped him getting to the ball.

The Trossard incident is nowhere near as obvious, and it's one that has split opinion. I personally don't think the contact was enough for VAR to get involved. But yep, if the ref had given it then it would have stood as a penalty too.

Thread not quite as long as the past two today.

Remember, we are collecting the biggest VAR incidents and rating each one for controversy and VAR throughout the season. https://www.espn.com/soccer/english-premier-league/story/4218983/var-controversies-in-the-premier-league-202021