Welcome to the Monday VAR thread, this week looking at:

- Fulham vs. Liverpool
- Elneny possible red card
- Leeds v West Ham penalty
- Wolves handball

Lots for you to disagree with this week.

First, the penalty review rejected by Andre Marriner from Fabinho's challenge on Ivan Cavaleiro.

There are many parts to this, so it's important to take into account that opinion has been pretty split.

Personally, I think it was a penalty, but does that mean it should be?

The VAR, Lee Mason, needed an age to look at replays and decide, in his subjective opinion, it was a penalty.

If the VAR feels he has evidence of a clear and obvious error, he must advise Marriner to take a look.

Marriner felt the replays were inconclusive.

You must decide whether the evidence was sufficient for a penalty.

Even though I think it was a penalty, that Fabinho played Cavaleiro's foot onto the ball, I'll get lots of replies saying he got the ball.

I have no problem with Marriner sticking with his decision here.

If VAR is working properly the ref should never reject a review at the screen.

Why? Because a VAR review should happen if almost everyone would agree it was obviously wrong and the ref would immediately change the decision.

But you need the process to prevent "re-refereeing".

There have been as many rejected reviews (2) in the Premier League this season as there has been in the Bundesliga since the start of the 2019-20 season.

That's can largely be put down to referees being more experienced with VAR. Though perhaps refereeing standards are higher.

Fulham goal. If you watch in real time the contact by Antonee Robinson on Mo Salah is minimal.

The images paint a misleading picture.

The contact in image 1 doesn't warrant the exaggerated reaction in image 2.

Salah tried to buy a foul here and the goal should stand.

The Liverpool penalty is a stonewall. And it's nothing to do with a change in the handball law.

Aboubakar Kamara jumps with his arm away from his body and blocks the ball. No other decision is possible. It's a penalty.

But Kamara should have been booked as a mandatory yellow.

I was stunned that the VAR, David Coote, didn't recommend a red card review for Mohamed Elneny.

It was a premeditated act, and Elneny sent James Tarkowski to the floor by pushing his face back from his chin. Amazing he got away with it. It was worse than the Granit Xhaka red!

The Elneny incident couldn't be a penalty because the ball wasn't in play.

Also, the ref, Graham Scott, booked Elneny towards the end of the VAR review on advice from the linesman. It wasn't a VAR yellow.

The on-field officials should have come to that decision much earlier.

Onto the saved Leeds penalty. Lukasz Fabianski was off the line. It's tight but not up for debate. He's off the line.

David Moyes said "surely the benefit should go to the goalkeeper, he has made the save." Which is quite some nonsense.

The law is rubbish, but it's the law.

On Patrick Bamford's encroachment when Mateusz Klich scored the retake.

VAR protocol states that encroachment - by goalkeeper, defender or attacker - can ONLY be reviewed if a player becomes directly involved in play, if the ball rebounds from the post, crossbar or keeper.

It wasn't only Bamford in the area.

In this example, there would be another retake of the penalty had Patrick Bamford scored the rebound, or if Angelo Obgonna had cleared a rebound as he too was encroaching.

The VAR will take no action after a scored or missed target penalty.

By the absolute letter of the law, the referee could order a retake.

But the general interpretation now is to only penalise encroachment if the player becomes involved, OR if the encroachment is so blatant it could affect an opponent. This isn't the case here.

On the Romain Saiss handball vs. Villa, it's a classic example of a handball that would have been given in September but shouldn't be now.

Saiss' arm is in a natural position and doesn't move toward the ball. It's different to the arm being up and creating an unnatural barrier.

A lot was made about BT Sport referencing VAR Graham Scott talking about the "green zone" of the arm to the match referee.

While this was discussed, as it should be as part of the decision considering where the ball it, it wasn't the reason the penalty wasn't given.

I'm sure Leeds fans would expect a mention of the possible Angelo Ogbonna handball, but again the arm was in a natural position the the second contact was involuntary.

The fact it's not in any highlights packages tells its own story.