RateTheRef

I would also add, in relation to the Villa one in particular, that I think the referee's reasoning is probably quite important. If they're telling the VAR 'the defender was nowhere near the ball' then that's clearly incorrect so I would say increases the likelihood of a VAR review being appropriate.

I thought the Villa 'penalty' was one of those that wouldn't be definitely wrong either way.  The BT commentators both thought it was a penalty, were surprised when VAR intervened and expected Oliver to stick with his original decision.  Presumably they heard VAR's input but not the referee's.  Actually, I was quite surprised how quickly Oliver seemed to make up his mind looking at the monitor.  He presumably considered contact with the ball was enough, and the contact with the player not strong enough, to reverse his decision.

However, I tend to agree with rustyref's point about a 'directive'.  After the controversy a few weeks ago when Graham Scott kept to his goal decision despite a 'foul' in the build-up, it occurred to me after yesterday's incidents that referees may well have been advised to 'think extremely carefully' before contemplating sticking with their original decision.  The logic presumably is that it's easier to explain a referee getting it wrong with his 1 view in real time with 1 angle than it is to justify a referee effectively ignoring the view of VAR who has seen it at full speed, slo-mo, and from various angles, thus implying VAR has got it wrong.  After all, if VAR is advising the referee to look at the monitor, is he really saying "I'm not too sure about this - have a look, what do you think"?  He's implying he's reached a different conclusion and the referee has got it wrong; at least that's my understanding.