How controversial VAR calls have defined two title battles

Two games, two potentially title-defining stoppage time video assistant referee moments.

On Sunday in the Premier League, West Ham saw their equalising goal against Arsenal ruled out for a foul by Pablo on David Raya.

It gave the Gunners a 1-0 win to keep the title in their own hands, while also deepening West Ham's relegation worries.

Then on Wednesday night, the VAR intervened to give a penalty for handball against Motherwell's Sam Nicholson with just eight seconds remaining in added time.

Kelechi Iheanacho converted from he spot to snatch a 3-2 win for Celtic in the Scottish Premiership. It was the last kick of the game.

This led to a similar kind of impact and reaction as both decisions went in favour of the bigger club, the one fighting for the title who does not have the weight of public support on their side.

But it showed differences, too, in how the VAR decisions were reached, and what is considered conclusive.

Celtic scored a match-winning penalty with the last kick of the game after Motherwell's Sam Nicholson conceded a penalty for handball after a VAR review

"The controversy and discontent around West Ham not being given the goal is because it's Arsenal," Danny Murphy said on MOTD.

Murphy was suggesting that lots of neutral fans might not want the Gunners to win the title.

This is largely due to their style of play, the perception that there is an over-reliance on set-pieces and that they have got away with bullying the opposition on corners.

"They can't be held accountable for decisions in the past," Murphy added. "Just because it's Arsenal we shouldn't get it distorted."

In Scotland, meanwhile, if you are not of a green-and-white persuasion (and that includes Hibernian) you probably want Hearts to win the title - and end the Celtic-Rangers duopoly.

Not since Sir Alex Ferguson's Aberdeen in 1984-85 has a team other than one of the Old Firm been crowned Scottish champions.

The VAR intervention means that rather than needing a victory by at least three goals in Saturday's title decider between Celtic and Hearts at Parkhead, any win will now be sufficient for Martin O'Neill's men.

Both VAR decisions caused a huge controversy - among pundits, supporters and in the media.

Penalty for this? Celtic and Hearts face title decider as McInnes slams 'disgusting' call

Five 'fouls' in one move - breaking down Premier League corner chaos

Biggest VAR call ever? Four chaotic minutes that may define the season

It raises a question about whether the game is any better with VAR - and if the reaction would be any different without it.

Many fans feel that VAR was sold as the solution, that all arguments about decisions would be ended by video review.

If anything, the noise has been amplified with supporters able to find fault not only with the on-field call, but with the video referee too.

But we should not pretend that before VAR there was a utopian world where shoulders were shrugged and decisions accepted. We have video review because of anger about referees.

Take the image of Pablo holding onto the arm of goalkeeper Raya. This would certainly have been circulated across social media, held up by boss Mikel Arteta as proof of an error.

There was, though, near-universal agreement among pundits and refereeing experts that disallowing the West Ham goal was the right decision.