This is not about a clear and obvious errorpublished at 11:40 BST
Dale Johnson
Football issues correspondent
Image source, Getty ImagesThe biggest issue with judging handball is often determining if the ball did actually hit the arm, and that is the crux of Nottingham Forest's argument.
Neco Williams is adamant the ball came off his head and did not touch his hand, evidence which of course would not be available to the VAR.
Even having a chip in the ball, like at the World Cup, would not help here as the head and hands were so close together.
This is not about a clear and obvious error, as that covers subjective incidents like potential penalties.
It is a factual overturn so the VAR, Peter Bankes, is looking for definitive proof. This is similar but without taking into account what the referee, Craig Pawson, says he has seen.
Definitive proof can be seen as a higher bar than clear and obvious, because it is a factual decision - that the ball definitely touched the goalscorer's arm.
Oliver Glasner, Williams and most of the Forest fanbase refuse to accept that evidence does exist, and that there were no grounds to disallow the goal.
These decisions come down to one factor - the judgement of who is in the VAR room on a given match.
It is unavoidable that another VAR on a different day might feel the threshold of proof had not been crossed, and allow the goal to stand.
And this will always be one of the major frustrations with VAR.
Harry Maguire's goal against Ipswich last weekend was allowed despite a handball because his shot was going wide before it was deflected, meaning it was an own goal.
In Williams' case, he actually was the goalscorer so any touch on the arm means the goal must be ruled out.
The only thing that would have saved the goal was if the ball had fully crossed the line before it was kicked against Williams.
