This is not about a clear and obvious error

The central problem with judging handball lies in discerning whether the ball truly struck the arm, which is at the heart of Nottingham Forest's objection. Neco Williams is resolute that the ball struck his head and did not make contact with his hand, a fact that VAR cannot verify. Even a chip of the ball, like during the World Cup, would not suffice due to the proximity of the head and hands.

This is not an instance of a clear and obvious error, which typically refers to subjective matters such as potential penalties. Instead, it is a factual reversal, demanding conclusive evidence for the VAR, Peter Bankes, to review. This scenario mirrors a similar case but without considering the referee's perspective, Craig Pawson.

The standard for definitive proof is higher than the 'clear and obvious' criterion because it is an objective decision - whether the ball indisputably touched the scoring player's arm. Despite Oliver Glasner, Williams, and the majority of Forest fans denying the existence of such evidence, the decision ultimately hinges on the VAR room's interpretation.

It is inevitable that another VAR on a different day could perceive the proof threshold as unmet and allow the goal to stand. This inconsistency remains one of the most vexing aspects of VAR implementation. Harry Maguire's goal against Ipswich last weekend was permitted despite a handball because his shot was deflected wide, rendering it an own goal.

In contrast, Williams was the actual scorer, and any contact on his arm necessitates the disallowance of the goal. The sole salvaging option would have been if the ball had fully crossed the goal line prior to the deflection against Williams.