There is contact and it is a foul, albeit a soft one, it is a foul and that is the argument towards the penalty being given. But is it a "clear and obvious error"?
For me, no. The fact that the actual foul itself is being debated about being a penalty should be enough to say that this isn't a clear and obvious error. So has that been scrapped altogether? I think the referee's are under pressure when they go to the pitch-side monitor as they are under pressure to change their decision, as that is ultimately what that is there for given the fact of how many decisions have been changed when they have viewed the incidents across many games.
This isn't because it's Liverpool, it's not hard luck on Liverpool, trying to take as neutral a view as possible, it's not good for the game. VAR has just brought more inconsistency, where it otherwise shouldn't have.
You take inconsistent referee's, put inconsistent referee's in at Stockley Park on VAR patrol, you give inconsistent referee's a second chance to review their decision, which will only further evidence towards their inadequacy to officiate a game at the pace it should be, shows the referee are not well trained enough at situation analysis when reviewing decisions and decisions almost become inconclusive because they are viewing replays in slow motion. That isn't fair to me. If you're going to review the decision, you should review it at the speed the incident happens at, not slower. That's a consistent decision then. If they change their mind, fair play, if they don't, then they can't see it.
Ultimately we will never create the perfect game, but today has only further emphasised the wrong-doings on VAR and gives even more doubt upon the system. This is a viewpoint from somebody who actually still supports that VAR is good for the game in general as well, but today has given me a different view.
What are the rules...