This is one of the many issues with VAR though. Consensus here is very split. If VAR or the ref said no penalty, there’d still be loads of people saying it’s a bad decision. So should you just bum use of VAR for anything subjective? Would we be any worse off?
Just fuck off the clear and obvious bullshit. The only reason this overturn is contentious is because there are countless examples of similar incidents (even from this weekend) where they've stuck with the onfield decision.
For fouls in the box they should just answer three questions:-
Was there contact? Yes / no
Was the contact initiated by the defender? Yes / no
Was the contact sufficient to impact the attacker? Yes / no
If and only if the answer is yes to all three questions should there be a review when the onfield decision is no penalty - and the review shouldn't be a case of VAR saying we think this is a penalty, but rather just saying this needs another look. Then let the referee decide without them already thinking they've got it wrong.
Similarly if the onfield decision is a penalty but the answer is no to any of the above questions.