The contrast will attract scrutiny because both incidents involve decisions that can shape a match. Botman stayed on the pitch after the challenge on Jackson, while Bentancur was sent off against United.
Webb’s position reflects VAR’s central test: officials should intervene when an on-field decision is clearly and obviously wrong, rather than simply because another viewing produces a different opinion. That distinction remains difficult for supporters when a tackle appears severe in real time or looks more dangerous in slow motion.
A replay can isolate the moment of contact, but referees must assess the wider action, including the speed of the challenge, the point of contact and the level of control. Those details determine whether an incident crosses the red-card threshold, not the reaction that follows it.
Webb’s support for both decisions also underlines the challenge facing the system. Fans want consistency, yet consistency does not mean every serious-looking challenge produces the same punishment. The final judgement depends on the specific incident and the referee’s initial call.
Public explanations are increasingly important when VAR decisions divide opinion. Webb’s review gives officials a chance to clarify why Botman’s tackle did not meet the intervention threshold and why Bentancur’s dismissal was considered supportable.
The next storyline will be whether similar incidents receive equally clear explanations. Until that happens, the debate around VAR will continue to focus not only on the decisions themselves, but on how convincingly refereeing authorities explain them.