“Clear and obvious”
Their get out of jail card.
Talking of Jail Dean should be payed a visit by the police.
As I have said many times, the "clear and obvious" threshold makes absolutely no sense for a VAR review system, exists practically in no other sport that uses video replay review, and could only continue to be used at this point--given the mounting number of officiating debacles--for the purpose of giving them leeway to explain away gross incompetence (for which they do almost nothing to mitigate) and attempt to influence match results.
Insisting on employing a threshold not of "was an error made that needs to be corrected" but rather of "was the error made of a sufficient level to warrant correcting" is farcical, at least in the context of the inherent goal of having a video replay review system in the first place.
All those defending officials and VAR due to most calls being subjective have yet to provide a reasonable explanations as to why, then, the governing bodies would want to add another even more subjective layer to officiating. The "they want to avoid re-refereeing" argument is nonsense, because the very nature of VAR is re-refereeing, so you would have to scrap it entirely to avoid that. And it certainly doesn't speed up VAR review, unless one is arguing VAR being able to arbitrarily decide to ignore incidents "missed" by on-field officials so as to not "slow down the game as a spectacle" is a good thing, which I would strongly contest.
Fans called for VAR to reduce the frequency of especially contentious, impactful (some would say highly suspect) decisions. But it hasn't really done that. It has reduced the less contentious, impactful decisions, sure. On balance, though, it is only served to call the integrity and fairness of officiating in the Premier League in to question, especially given the leagues insistence on implementing it differently to other top leagues and strange resistance to making simple changes to improve transparency, and ultimately confidence in officiating.
en.as.com
