'Clear and obvious' was a sham from the beginning because they don't look at the incidents objectively to adjudge whether they were clearly and obviously a foul. Instead it's deciding whether it's excusable for the referee to have made their call irrespective of it being correct or incorrect, so just validating their decisions. The exception to this is offsides, which are decided with questionable logic and methods.
If subjectivity is allowed then there is zero consistency in how rules are applied, which means that we get different outcomes not just between matches but within individual games. The lack of clarity and transparency on how each decision is being made means that the PL can change the rules however they see fit from match to match, which is incredibly dangerous.
If subjectivity is allowed then there is zero consistency in how rules are applied, which means that we get different outcomes not just between matches but within individual games. The lack of clarity and transparency on how each decision is being made means that the PL can change the rules however they see fit from match to match, which is incredibly dangerous.