This article was first published today in our bespoke Sports newsletter The Fixture. You can sign up in seconds to receive it straight to your inbox every weekday here.  

There are times when you watch a potential penalty decision in real time and you conclude unequivocally that it is going to be given.

Such was The Fixture's reaction during the closing stages of Manchester United v Wolves last night when Andre Onana, United's new £50m goalkeeper came out for a cross which he subsequently missed before clattering into the visiting striker Sasa Kaladzic – with two arms flailing – felling the Austrian in the process. Somewhat unbelievably Simon Hooper, the match referee, remained impassive awaiting a call in his headset to go to the pitchside monitor for a review of the incident which never came. When he did make his way to the sideline it was to book Gary O'Neil, the Wolves manager, for his protestations.

"Jon Moss said it was a blatant penalty and should have been given – fair play to him, he apologised," O'Neil said after the game. "But fair play to Jon for coming out and saying it was a clear and obvious error – he couldn't believe the on-field referee didn't give it and can't believe VAR [video assistant referee] didn't intervene.”

O'Neil was not the only one who was angry about the decision in the aftermath of witnessing it.

“Don’t pull the wool over the eyes of those that saw it. This was an obvious foul. Ref should have pointed to the mark. VAR wrong also,” wrote Keith Hackett, the former FIFA referee, on X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter. Hackett is a longstanding critic of the PGMOL, the organisation which governs match officials in England.

The Herald:

At times such as these it is always instructive to seek out the thoughts of Dale Johnson, the editor at ESPNFC. Johnson has immersed himself in the law changes that have infiltrated football in recent seasons. He often outlines both VAR's impact on creating confusions and the issues the changes have thrown up for the modern referee. Johnson regularly finds himself the subject of abuse from supporters of a 'wronged' club when his modus operandi is merely to point out what the interpretation of the law is and how it has been applied.

His take on the 'missed penalty decision' spelled out the reasons why it should have been awarded.

“When a check begins, the referee will describe the incident,” wrote earlier today. “So, if Hooper says that he felt the goalkeeper didn't quite get there and it was a coming together, there's a base for the VAR to begin with. It's then about recognising that description is no more than a loose fit. There has been a coming together, of sorts, but the way that Onana goes into his opponent clearly should be judged as a foul and a penalty kick.”

Alas, VAR continues to be hampered by the ineptitude of those dispensing it in England's Premier League. Michael Salisbury, the man in the booth for the game at Old Trafford last night, was the same official in the hot seat when Brighton had a penalty turned down for a foul on Karou Mitoma against Tottenham last season. Salisbury missed four other highly contentious decisions that day and was dropped for the following week's action – and rightly so. The question is at what point is there a judgment made that an individual is not fit for purpose?

Salisbury also missed two penalties in a match between West Ham and Fulham last season. Should he continue to be employed for VAR duties it feeds a narrative that certain clubs are being more favoured than others in English football's top flight. It also cast doubts on the legitimacy of the entire officiating system – the very thing VAR was brought in to remove.