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 the 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.

Many fans feel that VAR was sold as the solution

"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.

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.

It was largely fan sentiment that was against it.

The opposite is true in Scotland, where there is pretty much universal agreement that the VAR should not have stepped in to give the penalty to Celtic.

Furious Hearts head coach Derek McInnes said it was a "disgusting" decision.

Why Dallas had just one camera angle to use

There were some clear differences in approach.

Darren England, the VAR for the Arsenal game, spent two minutes 41 seconds poring over every angle of the footage, checking the possible foul, and potential penalties.

That length of time made sense, as there were multiple incidents to check.

Once at the monitor, referee Chris Kavanagh was there for one minute 15 seconds and watched 17 different replays.

In total, the review lasted four minutes 11 seconds.

It was markedly quicker at Fir Park, though there was only one thing to review.

The Celtic game was stopped for one minute 25 seconds while the VAR, Andrew Dallas, carried out a penalty check.

But once referee John Beaton went to the pitchside monitor, he was there for only 20 seconds and watched just two replays.

Dallas also rocked-and-rolled the frames, presenting this as clear proof that the ball had hit the Motherwell midfielder's hand.

It was two minutes four seconds from the potential handball to the spot-kick being awarded - half the time of the contentious decision at the London Stadium.

VARs in Scottish football are hindered by one key factor: resources.

In England, a minimum of 28 cameras, though often more, are available to the VAR at each ground.

But up in Scotland, most games have a minimum of just six cameras, going up to 12 for the fixtures selected for live television broadcast.

That the VAR was only able to present one camera angle to the referee highlighted the limitations. Beaton was only shown what everybody at home had watched on television.

It should be remembered that referees must have a level of trust that in the VAR, that when they get to the screen it is only because they have made a clear error.

It is why, at all levels, there are only a handful of times each season that a referee sticks with their own decision.

It is why the VAR is the real arbiter.

So regardless of whether the ball does actually touch Nicholson's hand, it was a bold move for the VAR to determine he had definitive evidence.

"VAR was introduced to, in Fifa's terminology, not to look for pebbles but look for boulders," former Scottish Premiership referee Bobby Madden told 5 Live.

"Last night isn't a pebble, it is not even a grain of sand. It goes against the whole ethos of why VAR was introduced."

Perhaps it says a lot that fans found it necessary to create and share fake images on social media as supposed definitive proof.

The VAR must have evidence which is 'absolutely categorical'

Only on Tuesday, Premier League referees' chief Howard Webb discussed a handball decision which was not given.

When Benjamin Sesko scored Manchester United's second goal against Liverpool earlier this month, there was a chance the ball might have touched his fingers before it went into the net.

Under the handball law that should automatically lead to the goal being disallowed but, as Webb explained, the VAR did not feel he could be "absolutely categorical" about it.

The VAR, Stuart Attwell, had multiple different camera angles and still could not be certain.

Peering through the gloom of the Fir Park floodlights with one camera angle, it is difficult to understand how Dallas could be so sure.

While there might be a feeling justice was served at the London Stadium, that does not appear to be the case in Scotland.

Did the ball actually touch Nicholson's hand? Or just his head?

The only person who truly knows is the player himself.

And that should never be enough for the VAR to get involved.

The one thing VAR has not done, which some believed it would, is stop arguments about the game.

But in a sport which is drawn on such partisan line, that was never really going to be possible.

What does this say about how VAR is working?

VAR continues to be divisive regardless of whether the final decision is correct, and it continues to frustrate the fans.

BBC Sport Celtic fan writer Martin Callaghan:

"Maybe the biggest debate about the late penalty that Celtic got at Fir Park last night is just how sure (or not!) referee John Beaton could have been that a handball did indeed occur when he was called to the VAR monitor in the dying minutes of the game.

"So although I'd say that he did get it right, are he and his colleagues truly working with the suitable technology, resources and tools to consistently nail what could be decisions with multi million pound consequences?

"I'm not so sure.

"The product here in Scotland has been described in places as 'VAR Lite' and I'd say that's as accurate a way as any to describe what our officials are working with - and also what our supporters are having to endure.

"It's quite clear (pardon the pun) that there's simply not enough cameras to ensure that with any contentious decisions such as this one the referee is given enough data to make a truly informed decision – and that can't be right.

"So while the decision went Celtic's way last night – and some sort of myth has since been peddled that it was ever thus – the reality is that everyone is suffering with our below par product.

"Players, fans, clubs, coaches – and perhaps most of all, those in the middle who are ultimately tasked with making the big calls."

BBC Sport Hearts fan writer Greg Playfair:

"We could talk about the VARdict on Celtic's late penalty for another 40 years, under the current VAR set-up in Scotland.

"To borrow a VAR phrase, it's clear and obvious that the system is flawed - and it has nothing to do with the technology itself. My issue is with how the officials continue to misuse it. We're now in a position where human error could cost Hearts a potential £30-40m in Champions League revenue.

"It feels as though head of refereeing Willie Collum and his team have made things unnecessarily convoluted for officials in Scotland, particularly with interpretations of laws such as handball that seem to create controversies here which simply do happen elsewhere in European football.

"The other issue I take offence to is this: we have matches worth millions of pounds being officiated by part-time referees. Is some of the erratic decision-making down to the fact these officials are spending 40 or 50 hours a week in their main jobs and then arriving at grounds already fatigued?

"There needs to be a radical review and overhaul of refereeing in Scotland as soon as possible. But I've got a nagging feeling there will be one last controversy yet in the title decider between Celtic and Hearts, as the current set up is not fit for purpose."

BBC Sport Arsenal fan writer Chris Howard

"As a match-going fan, I experience the agony of a VAR 'wait' call on a regular basis, and I am not a fan. But Pandora's box has been opened, so we all need to reframe our relationship with it.

"I think we also have to go back to what we all want from VAR. We hear 'consistency' and 'getting the right decision' as the key reasons. The first part can be debated, but I do feel that when the decisions aren't extremely subjective ('that's never a pen'), VAR does often get things right.

"The noise around West Ham's disallowed goal was not about the decision in isolation, it was partisan fans, commentators and ex-players having their say, trying to create noise and get themselves profiled.

"We do, however, need to look at who is in charge of VAR and I do think a review of the people behind the screens is something that needs to be done, which I think will have to happen sooner rather than later."

BBC Sport West Ham fan writer Holly Turbutt

"The VAR decision in the West Ham-Arsenal game has caused a huge debate among fans as to how useful this technology actually is in the Premier League.

"We know it was introduced to stop those clear and obvious errors that we were seeing happening quite a lot with referees, but the problem is that it still comes down to human error and human decision-making, and you can't look at everything across the board.

"That's where the frustration is coming.

"We're seeing inconsistencies as fans. We're seeing four-minute checks when fans don't know whether to celebrate or not. We're seeing so many situations that don't get looked at - or a situation that is given as a foul through VAR in one game, but not in another.

"And you've also got the situation when, if a referee goes to the screen, 99% of the time it feels like they are going to change their mind.

"All of this means VAR does not really feel like the useful resource we hoped it might be when it was introduced.

"Ultimately, VAR shines a spotlight on one moment but then it still comes down to a human decision in that moment, which is prone to human error and bound to cause debate among fans because it's such a pressured environment.

(BBC Sports News)

Update news