Ref's decisions right or wrong can change games that is true, but when VAR was introduced all that was supposed to be solved. Whatever the decision taken it would always be the right one, because "VAR would only be used when there is a clear and obvious mistake"; at least that's how the VAR 'mantra' went.
Up to now it could be argued that the 'clear and obvious' bit has got lost in translation, but whatever the 'margins' applied, generally speaking, a 'right decision' had been taken...that is up until Sunday, when a Chelsea player clearly handled the ball intentionally, within the penalty area but no penalty was awarded. Even when the Ref was directed to have a look at the TV monitor, he still ruled against a penalty... because apparently... "it would have caused a lot of upset".
You bet it would!
If it were any other club who missed out on this kind of decision, with this sort of explanation, then that ref's next game would have been in the seventh tier of football and he would never be heard from again in the PL.
Its not just the decision itself, even though the ref clearly needs to 'go to spec-savers', but the reason for giving the decision, that is completely unacceptable and most importantly why didn't VAR over rule the ref?