Good luck to Forest, but I think it will fall on deliberately deaf ears.
The narrative started on Saturday. MOTD managed to get an ex pro (Ashley Williams) to say it was the correct decision, without allowing any opposing views to be aired. Dean came later saying it was the correct decision, and suddenly it isn't as universally condemned as it otherwise would have been.
We see it all the time, and this is the pattern:
1. Initial decision immediately in favour of United.
2. VAR checks but there wasn't enough in it to recommend a review or overturn the decision.
3. Original decision stands.
For most other clubs, the pattern is slightly different:
1. Initial decision is against the interest of non-favoured team.
2. VAR checks but there wasn't enough in it to recommend a review or overturn the decision. On rare occasions, for really obvious mistakes, a review is called for.
3. Original decision stands.
Thus the majority of controversial calls go in United's favour and against other teams. I'm even starting to include Liverpool as a non-favoured team.
Pundits and journalists are really useless. In the Rashford penalty question, their starting point is entirely wrong - "Was there contact?" If the answer is yes, then they conclude without further question, that a penalty was the correct decision.
They should be saying: "Mike Riley said at the start of the 21-22 season that referees will ask themselves whether the player used contact to try and win a foul penalty, and it isn't sufficient just to say: ‘Yes, there’s contact.’ In addition to this, the amendments in the 23-24 Laws of the Game says that referees have been told to apply a higher threshold when considering contact between players to allow the game to flow better without so many free-kicks. Have these requirements been correctly applied in this situation?"
Attwell, other referees, and VARs are not applying their own regulations to United. They are not being held accountable for it, and neither is PGMOL.