VAR Did It All Go Wrong?

Pitches are fantastic nowadays and are a world away from the cabbage patches that were in every ground in the past,masquerading as a "pitch".
And these wonderful surfaces allow City and other footballing sides to entertain us, and surely, that's what it's all about isn't it? Surely that has led to the boom in attendances, entertaining football being beamed straight into your sitting room, encouraging fans to get off the sofa and go the game.?

But the downsides? Feigning injury, diving, agents, bastard agents, pampered, overpaid prima donnas who are as far removed from my heroes* as a lad as you could possibly get, wrestling at corner kicks which almost ALWAYS result in a free kick in the defenders favour because the ref hasn't got the balls to give a penalty. When Mike Dean gave a couple of penalties against Stoke for that offence he was castigated in some areas for sticking to the rules. If every ref had had the courage to do the same maybe the game would be better still.
Oh, and referees who think that we travelled to the match to watch them mincing about. Yet still giving the Sky six the benefit of the doubt...

Yes, these downsides have entered football yet we all still go.

FIFA etc, had a chance to improve the game recently with some rule changes yet the opportunity has, in my view, been missed. A chance to rid the game of time wasting, for example, has gone. And diving. Sure, there is SUPPOSED to be a law which allows diving cheats to serve a ban but when has it been implemented.? (I think we all know the answer to that one!) I think the wording is something like "successful deception of a match official". what about an UNsuccessful attempt? Just because a player doesn't manage to con the ref doesn't make him any less of a cheat than say, Salah, who has taken it to a fine art. Have retrospective bans for players who TRY to cheat as well as the ones who get away with it.

Again, a chance missed. So are the FA/FIFA going to further cock up the game by introducing VAR? In my opinion, yes, in its present form. I said on another thread that if it takes more than 30 seconds from the time of the "offence" to an eventual verdict than the referees original decision stands, or the game continues. If it takes more than 30 seconds it's too close to call. 3 and 4 minutes to come to a decision is too long and will kill the atmosphere. VAR? No thanks, not as it is now. The faceless twats sat in Essex or somewhere will still favour the Sky darlings.

I Respect the views of all who have posted on one side or the other, but as for myself, I don't intend to add anything else to the debate.

We will never know for sure, but I continue to believe that as the WWC in particular continued, tournament officials saw what wasn't working and quietly allowed the referees to make adjustments to some of the more idiotic situations. There was less confusion in later games.

It's also worth noting that those of us watching the Gold Cup got a last look at life without VAR, because the tournament didn't use it. The omission may have determined the outcome of the tournament. Mexico was gifted a semifinal winner against Haiti on an extra-time penalty that TV replays showed to be a spectacular flop by Raul Jimenez. VAR would likely have overturned the call. Mexico went on to win the Cup.

Finally, I would expect this issue to "stimulate" further debate, but perhaps not quite in the way Jay describes the new handball rules. Might want to add a "T" to that word, Jay. ;>)

Forwards will have to stop making the same runs that they could risk before. They could rely on a tight decision going their way as it was impossible for a linesman to tell if they were offside by an inch or two.
I don't think a player's foot should be looked at when judging whether a player is offside. I think it should be his torso and the last defender's torso that decide whether or not he is offside. Whether it's a forward's back, chest, or stomach which is beyond the last defender's back, chest, or stomach, that should be the decider.
If a defender steps out as a forward attempts to make a perfectly timed breakaway then their torsos could be in line, but a forward's foot is always going to be outstretched towards the goal whereas the defender's will be stepping up.
The offside rule was never made with VAR in mind. It takes the fun and excitement out of it.
Also, how far back can VAR be checked to rule out a goal?
What if they go back 30 seconds but at 32 seconds there was a slight infringement that the ref missed?

The way the refs use VAR in rugby union is so much more transparent. They explain through a mic what they think needs to be reviewed and why.

It's going to lead to a season of complaining but will most likely become accepted if they can rein it in a little and give more thought to how they use it with offsides.

To take just one example, Jay references that VAR automatic consideration of all goals scored will involve 'wind back'. Well yes, but how far?

As I have posted previously, without some limitation the wind back could presumably be taken as far as where the 'scoring' side first obtained possession, and that could be a number of minutes. How farcical would it be if a side saw a goal at the end of a 30- or 40-pass move being chalked off because the opening pass of that move was seen through VAR to have been offside.

Of course, the obvious thing to do is to limit the offside review to the final pass to the scorer. Okay this would mean that detected reffing errors are ignored -- but that is going to be the case anyway for the vast majority of instances over the 90 minutes.

The lead article averts to a cricket analogy in its "handball" segment, in effect quoting "any doubt must always be in favour of the batsman". That word "always" is in the laws of the game because runs in cricket are what defines the game as a basis for competition. Goals do so in football of course, but if the TV powers-that-be decree substantial delay is required to scrutinise whether or not a goal is legit the spectators at the ground better get used to lengthy frustrating delays. And most VAR scrutinies focus on legit goals of course.

So, with respect Jay, I don't believe VAR scrutiny will ever be foreshortened. On the contrary, whilst the scrutiny goes on and on it may be used by greedy TV companies to show re-runs of "Baywatch" to its huge TV audience (and thanks to Darren Hind on another thread for that amusing, to me, analogy of what emptied football grounds by 4.30pm at the latest about 30 years ago), whilst the ripped-off-fans in the ground en masse are abandoned as being of any significance at all.

Nothing new there then.

Not only that but apparently refs are being told to let the game continue even if they are near 100% certain that there will be reason to chalk any resultant goal off should it happen. There are going to be a lot of muted goal celebrations – that's for sure.

We don't need a VAR tail wagging the football dog...asseemed to be the case in the Womens World Cup.

Hopefully it will self monitor and evolve into something not too bad we can...as if we have a choice, live with - but I doubt it.

I am still of the opinion that although in most cases it is resolved, after a period of hope/disappointment depending on which side of the fence you are sitting, it is down to panel ref's interpretation.

Like in one of the Brazil matches recently, they had 3 goals disallowed, one by Firmino for shirt tugging (debatable) in the execution of the goal, some give it others don't, the other 2 being disallowed for a marginal off-side by a player who was not constructive or affecting the play. Again, I have seen some given in similar circumstances.

There is no argument that under the present set-up, that period of waiting for a decision to be made, irrespective of the outcome, is an entertainment wrecker, and any celebration, should it be given is very muted.

If we're playing Liverpool or Man United on a glorious Saturday afternoon. You've arrange to see all your old mates for a few before and after the game. Our boys are flying and you know the old lady will be bouncing. Its a no-brainer.

And its not about being a fair weather supporter. There are lots of different reasons why you feel you just HAVE to be there and they are not all good. Wild horses could not have stopped me going against Wimbledon or Coventry. However !
If we're playing Newcastle, on a freezing Monday night, The Mrs is down the bingo and you have a nice bottle of Mahatma in the cupboard. The undecided's will give it a very wide berth. They will still support Everton by watching it on the box. . and yes, VAR will still grind, but a nice glass of whatever you are drinking will nullify the impatience.

People smugly dismissing the possibility of gate fall should carefully read what people like John Mac and Dave A are saying. You may not have met either of these men, but you will definitely know them. Evertonians. Lovers of this club who simply go the match. They've been going for over a century between them (and the rest). The thought of "not going" before the season even kicks off, would never have occurred to either of them. Going the match is what they do.

It would be daft to suggest VAR would be the sole reason people will drift away, but I have this gut feeling that it may well be too big a leap. A change too many to the game we love.. . The final straw.

What I have seen in practice (specifically during the WWC this summer) was a whole new bewildering search for the most marginal of transgressions. An example being a goal disallowed after innumerable replays because an attacking players foot was millimetres "offside" at a given point in the attack preceding the action of scoring.

In that example what the referee discovered was neither clear nor obvious during the preceding passage of play. Indeed, it wasn't either clear or obvious during the interminable replays. What it was, however, was miniscule and pedantic.

If the action(s) of a player are indeed "clear and obvious", then surely a limited number of replays from a limited number of angles at normal speed should prove sufficient. If that doesn't clear up the issue then, by definition, the suspected transgression is neither clear nor obvious.

Goal line technology has proved decisive and due to it's instantaneous "opinion free" nature any subsequent quibbling resulting in mass harassing of officials has been eliminated. Success.

What GLT did introduce was miniscule margins ( a suitable season changeing example temporarily eludes Me here for some reason *coughs*). Margins not reasonably assessable by a human official, but margins which are repeatable accurately and consistently time after time.

With VAR we have been introduced to "magic lines" for the purposes of proving or disproving off-side. This is all very well, but are the actual pitches marked out to this level of exactitude ? Of course they aren't, and as such the "magic lines" are nonsensical.

The game is played "real time" and should also be refereed "real time". Some actions when replayed frame by frame appear solid, dramatic and forceful. Seen in real time these same actions appear quite inconsequential. Remember, this is a technique which the film industry has deployed successfully for decades to add emphasis and thrill to a scene.

VAR and the new takes on the rules aren't improving the game, they could, but not in their current application, that much is "clear and obvious" to Me.

Firstly for offsides.
The current offside laws should stand for linesmen, however they should be slightly different for VAR. if VAR is to only be used on ‘clear and obvious mistakes', then there should be daylight between the defender and attacker for it to be overturned. If goals are disallowed for a toe being offside, this is a marginal error and not a ‘clear and obvious' error.

Secondly - the VAR should be limited to challenges by the opposition (unless it is something that has been missed, ie off the ball incidents), who clearly need to state what the challenge is. If the opposition review VAR for an offside and there was, in fact, a slight foul, then it's tough. You didn't challenge the foul. This would prevent goals being disallowed for minor infringements that no one actually spotted.

Any other ideas?

Not to go on to much, VAR may improve the standard of decisions in the future but absolutely not in it's present form.

There are also too many changes in the laws of the game to accommodate it, we will all have to go to night school to study the complete issue of VA bleedin' R.

VAR is designed and guaranteed to add to the torture.

Football is unlike any other sport that currently has video review, it doesn't stop every other minute like other sports, only stops when the ball is put out of play, or a rule has been broken.

Let's take an example of a game last season, Liverpool vs Fulham: I think it was Mitrovic who scored from a cross only to be given as offside, Allison puts the ball straight down, plays the freekick outwide right, up the line from Alexander and onto Salah who scores, all happened within 10 to 20 seconds of the Fulham goal being disallowed.

1. Ref stops the game before Allison takes the free-kick to review the offside, and it's deemed offside (I don't think it was); LFC would most likely not have been able to score the goal on the counter, ruined the chance of counter-attack.

2. Ref stops the game after the Liverpool goal and gives Fulham the goal... farcical.

The goal line tech, yes, instant decision, but this reviewing from multiple angles, some angles were not even given to the ref (Nan City v Spurs) handball goal.. the TV audience were shown a conclusive video, the ref didn't get.

Too much room for abuse imo, takes the excitement and drama out of football. We cannot even celebrate a goal when it goes in now... might have to wait 10 mins after.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgBcwAj3BMA

If he stops it after the Fulham goal or any goal given as offside, then any counter attacks, an exciting part of football, is ruined and possibly for no reason. If he stops it after the Liverpool goal, takes the goal off Liverpool and gives Fulham a goal instead, yes maybe the correct decision, unless someone's long hair or big nose is given offside after 30 replays of the video from all angles, then it makes the game a farce.

We could add another variable into the mix. Say, for instance, Liverpool do not score from that counter; say Salah gets tackled in the box, appeals for a penalty waved away from the ref, Fulham regain possession, go back up the other end and Mitrovic is fouled in the penalty area, a penalty is given and for arguments sake Virgil van Dijk is given a red card. now the game has stopped, ref is then is told to review the offside goal? Goal given and no penalty or red card? How far back is it reviewed? Maybe the offside goal isn't given... Mo Salah tackle reviewed and given as penalty and then Van Dijk pen / red scrubbed out? I mean, it is, imo, fucking ridiculous.

Cheating Welsh cunt!!

While most posters have put forward views of possible positive/negative affects, I may be a lone voice in asking the authorities to abolish VAR, and to stop meddling with the laws of the game (some chance there). I once again, promise to steer clear of this subject but promises, 'like pies' are meant to be broken.

My argument is, a toenail is not a clear and obvious error, but daylight between players (probably half a yard offside) could be deemed as ‘clear and obvious'. Therefore offsides are only given when their is a clear and obvious error.

If anyone starts arguing then about whether there was daylight, we'll then their just arguing whether it was very offside or just fairly offside. Either way, it would be offside.

The offsides at the moment rarely have a definitive camera angle that satisfies all. Until there is one, I don't believe it should come into play for marginal decisions.

I hear what you're saying, but do you think fans will accept a ruling that says "Yeah, it was offside, but not by that much, so the goal stands"?

What if it was onside, but not by much, and the ref has disallowed it? Is the goal not given then, even though it was onside and a fair goal, because it wasn't a clear and obvious error by the ref? Genuine question, by the way.

I don't think the technology used is a definitive as it should be for offsides. They look onside from one angle and off from another. I don't think they solve much in that capacity, especially When you can be offside for having bigger feet, or an arm pointing where you want the ball to go.

Maybe challenges are the way forward. If you challenge an offside and they are marginally off then you get the decision.
However if you challenge a foul and they're marginally offside then you don't get the decision. At least then they'll stop people asking for VAR on the off chance there was an infringement.
You could even have it on the big screen... Everton challenge foul, then everyone knows it will be reviewed when the ball is out of play.

"Evolution"?????. . Evo-fucking-lution ??????????????????

We are not talking about a minor change in the back-pass law here, or a slight adjustment to the way a throw in can be made. . Were are talking about seismic change which eats into the very spirit of the game. A change so epic it has lifelong match goers telling us they no longer recognise their game.

I read this this wondering if it was the case for the prosecution or the defence. It really is all over the shop.

I loved the way the shambolic results of VAR in Russia were dismissed as "a few teething problems"
And the way VAR is credited for curing the all-in wrestling we see in the box every time a free kick or corner is awarded. What actually brought about the improvement was the desire to punish such infringements. The referees didnt just have their eyes opened. They have ALWAYS seen this grappling. Only now, they were under strict instructions to punish the culprits.

And what about this little gem;

"This is NOT a match-going v TV spectator issue as some contrive to make it" . . Very subtle. Why not just say something like "Look guys, as you all know, I never get near a game, but I'll speak for everyone anyway".

There has, to my knowledge, NEVER been a suggestion that it is match-goer "Versus" TV spectator situation. However You would have to have lost contact with all reality if you don't understand the is a massive difference between the two experiences. Having spent most of last season watching on a PC or the telly I got a very close look at just how big that difference is.
Ask yourself why people like John Mac, Dave and Tony Abrahams, John G Davies, Dave Lynch (to name but a few match-goers on here) are so totally against VAR ? It doesnt mean any of them are opposed, or against people like Mike (Gaynes). There is no "versus".. . They are just fans expressing their views from their seat.
The views we see here on TW may well be out of wack with the overall picture for all I know, especially when we are talking about such a small group of people, but the demographics are and should remain part of the discussion.

This article was a clear attempt to win people over to the authors way of thinking, for me it fell down at the very first hurdle with a truly bizarre analogy and it never really recovered.

Claims that;

Crowd reaction somehow enhanced a CL game.

A Handball decision can be justifiably called wrong AFTER a game - Oh that's ok then.

That we should be discussing the DEGREE to which somebody is offside rather than the mechanism by which these daft arsed decisions are made.

And the admission from the guy who penned the article is "less enamoured of VAR" after just one season, leave me to believe there is no need for the prosecution to present its case. The defending lawyer has just battered his client to death in full few of the courtroom

The problem is that it will not make anything fairer or stop controversy over decisions as it was intended too (I assume). It still involves a human decision over whether to review a certain incident or not from the VAR official – in effect, nothing is solved but the responsibility is merely passed from the on-pitch official to a faceless one that no-one can see in a backroom somewhere. I think an official not actually involved with the game making calls that can see a team win or lose is a massive problem on its own in terms of annoying fans or players.

When it comes to VAR and fairness, it will not change anything in terms of teams like us getting a better crack of the whip. To have a decision or event reviewed still needs the VAR official to give the say-so first so things will still get missed if they don't. In terms of controversy, it will not help either as how it is being used still leads to subjective decisions in many cases that some fans will not agree with (ie, using it to decide on debatable handball decisions or penalty decisions that are not clear-cut).

To sum up, it is not only pointless but also will do more harm than good. The only way it will work is only using it to decide on purely factual things (ie, was the ball over the line etc) or being there for the on-pitch ref to call on if needed (as in rugby).

You claim 'This article was a clear attempt to win people over to the author's way of thinking'

and that my piece was saying

'Look guys, as you all know, I never get near a game, but I'll speak for everyone anyway.'

It was nothing of the sort. It was an attempt to take a considered view of how VAR has performed this summer alongside the new rule changes introduced.

Do I offer my personal view on the evolution of VAR? Most certainly.

Do I do so in a dogmatic, lecturing 'I-know-best!' tone? Most certainly not.

I've quickly reviewed my opening post. It contains the following phrases which makes it very clear I am presenting my own view on VAR and its implications and NOT trying to impose my view on others:

'I thought' x 3, 'I suggest', 'For me' and 'Personally' x2.
'IMO', 'I think', 'I consider', 'I guess' and 'I believe' all once each.

I may have missed similar qualifying phrases.

That you were moved to write: 'I read this wondering if it was the case for the prosecution or the defence' rather suggests that I achieved the balance and fairness I was striving for.

And thank you for acknowledging that in my conclusion I openly admit to be less enamoured of VAR than I was last summer.

Was there anything you actually wanted to contribute to the debate Darren, other than see the name of a poster you dislike and post a rabid ad hominem comment?

Roy was given out by the umpire even though replays showed that it was the wrong decision. Due to England already wasting their review, he had to walk. That is very frustrating. The DRS shows that the umpire got it wrong, but the decision stands.

Without this rule, DRS would be used way too often by teams purposely slowing the game down. The power is still with the umpire and wrong decisions still have to be accepted, but there is the option to review, and continue to do so if your appeal is upheld.

Could that work in football? One review for each team per half. Also, the opportunity for the ref to ask for a review if he was unsure or unsighted. The referee and linesman would then continue to be in control of the decisions.

I guess where that method wouldn't work would be for offsides that are given by the linesman and then challenged by the attacking team. Play would already have been stopped and even if the review was upheld, the attacking team will not be able to take any advantage.

If linesman keep their flags down on tight calls and the attacking team scores, then the defensive team would need to use their review. But if they have already used it then they would be screwed, unless the ref decided to ask for a review. Attackers could take advantage and make very tight runs in the knowledge that the linesman will keep his flag down and the defending team has run out of challenges.

Offsides are going to be the real issues with var. Maybe the only way to solve this issue is to leave offsides with the linesman and not use var for any of them?

I don't like the idea of someone in a tv room speaking in the ref's ear and telling him what to review.

It is a very interesting debate and will be spoken about way too much this season, sadly.

You cannot say you want the correct decision to be made, then attempt to fuck about with what constitutes the "correct decision".

I've heard all sorts of crackpot ideas about what should and shouldn't constitute offside. A yard. A foot. Daylight. The torso... "Luis Suarez, you're teeth are offside". The fact is, hardly anyone agrees. They all want their version. Not possible. When you shake hands with the devil, you accept his terms.

Handball IS handball; Offside IS offside. And once you start going to go back to the build-up of a goal, it's only a matter of time before you start going back to the build-up of the build-up.

If you are going to ask referees to apply what he believes is "common sense", you are leaving the decision open to interpretation... isn't that the way it has always been?

The fact is, although most decisions are straight forward and incontestable, virtually every game will have one or two moments of real controversy. VAR can't, won't change that; if anything, it will make matters worse.

People can forgive a guy for making an error when he has one look... but, if (as we have seen on numerous occasions already) he fucks up after seeing it ten times... All that delay, for what?

This is not Rugby, we are not simply looking to see if the guy got the ball down or not, that's just a straight forward "Did he, didn't he?" It's not tennis where Hawkeye simply has to decide if the ball is in or out. We are not simply looking to see which horse got it's nose in front as they crossed the line...

We are talking about Football. A unique game enjoyed and loved by the working man for over a century. A simple game which, when played well, you won't dare turn your back on. A game that has been richly enhanced by laws which were, are and always will be open to interpretation. An inexact sport made beautiful by its imperfections.

Do you realise what you sound like? "Just because you don't like me"... WTF ?

You start your posts by babbling about Bestie and Mary Stavin, who although brilliant and beautiful, are totally inconsequential in this debate - unless you want to clumsily try to shoehorn in a, not very clever play on words... And you ask me if I had anything to add to the debate ?

The easily led may well fall for your usual claim of being unbiased, balanced and perfectly fair in thought word and deed, but most will see right through your hypocrisy.

You wave away the demographics. You inform us that it's not about "Americanisation" (A new one on me, but now that you mention it...) and after telling us what the debate is NOT about, you then condescend to tell other posters what the debate IS about. You dismiss other posters concerns about what is undoubtedly the biggest intrusion in the history of the game by telling them "Its simply one more evolution"

"Do I do so in a dogmatic, lecturing "I-know-best" tone? Most certainly not"

Wonderful stuff.

Give a dog a bone.

Here's a nice juicy one, Darren.

Go fetch and gnaw on that boy.

I appreciate that VAR is here for the long haul, and I'm sincere when I say, VAR could [and I stress could] force me to stop attending matches. Do you not feel that your verbal warfare, as interesting as it is, may be continued on a different subject?

As a very infrequent matchgoer, one of the things I've noticed is an increase in 'razzmatazz' and an artificial shouty imposed atmosphere, which irritates me, as I'm from an era when we knew where we were and who was playing and we created a natural atmosphere on our own, without any prompting.

Football is rightly looking to 'expand it's product' to new territories. In my view, VAR is a nod to this. The artificial 'excitement', the referral to the apparently unaccountable people in the booth, the potential for extra advertising & TV revenue.

Football is big and good enough to expand it's audience without alienating it's existing base. I'm a big racing fan and in it's quest to turn racing into an open air pub with horses on the side, constant shouty announcements and loud fanfares welcoming winners instead of the natural, emotional atmosphere of old, racing is alienating it's core audience and much of it's soul. I don't want football to go the same way.

VAR is great for goal line decisions, could be superb for retrospective disciplinary issues, but I have grave misgivings about the rest of it. Delays, more disputes, more arguments, more indecision and in my view, referees subcontracting decision-making to 'the booth'.

If it's here to stay, it needs tightening up, with clear guidelines as to how it works with the new laws.

It's a wonderful, simple game made complicated by people with good intentions. Like much in our society at the moment, I'm not sure about the intentions.

Perhaps the best solution would be to bring in an element of "referee's decision" like in cricket? So the referee has to make a decision, as does the linesman. The ref then gets a word in his ear that it's going to VAR. If in the case of offside, the attacking player has some part of his body onside, and some part of it offside, then the call is "referee's decision" so whatever the ref decided in the first place goes. If in the case of handball it's not a clear snide Suarez style punch off the line, then again the decision goes with whatever the ref decided in the first place, whether it's handball or play on.

So I would probably have said that would leave the following decisions:

Pen in the womens semi for England against USA: ref called no foul, VAR had about a million looks at it before detecting possible slight foul - should result in NO PEN by Ref's Decision.

England Jesse Lingard "winning" goal in Nation's Cup semi against Holland; ref called good goal, VAR detected it was very marginally offside, but not so clear that any ref or linesman could have seen - should result in GOAL by Ref's Decision. If the ref had called offside, then no goal would be the outcome.

Sterling's last minute "winner" in CL semi against Spurs. Ref gave good goal. VAR showed very clear offside. Should result in NO GOAL cos ref made clear error.

As an American football official we have a duty to keep officiating even once we've spotted an infringement as the penalty may be declined. So I understand why football officials have a duty to keep the play active.

American football and cricket have very slick review systems which operate under a kind of traffic light system (green: call confirmed; red: call reversed; and yellow/amber: call stands as given on the field ie we can't tell for sure so we'll go with what the decision was). To me VAR needs to go down this route (particularly with offside) to be truly effective and a success

The new campaign will see match officials able to issue technical area occupants, such as club bosses, yellow and red cards in the Premier League, EFL, Vanarama National League, Emirates FA Cup, Carabao Cup, EFL Trophy, Buildbase FA Trophy, plus the Women's Super League, Championship, FA Cup and Continental League Cup.

Four yellow cards during the season triggers a one-match touchline ban, eight leads to a two-match suspension, 12 equals a three-game suspension, while 16 would bring about a misconduct charge.

Wonder how many games Klopp will end up actually seeing from the touchline?

Mario Balotelli scored one with his shoulder a few years back.

And another thing for the pro-VARs, tell me what if Jesus had actually held the ball for a good few seconds, beat 3 men in the box, did a one-two and only then put the ball in the net -- still disallowed? If the directives say yes (though I've yet to hear anything about the official guidelines), then what a complete and total farce.

The whole soul of the game, the euphoria of a last-minute, deserved, winner, the after match arguments, was it or wasn't it, it's all going rapidly down the tubes.

If we are having to use VAR how the first-half penalty wasn't given? Unbelievable. The crazy rule change of hand or arm being used to chalk off the winner. Unbelievable.

I have no doubt at sometime during the season we will benefit from VAR, however, I would far sooner we bin it asap. The game we all know and love is slowly being taken from us.

1. Limit the application of the unintentional handball 'rule' to the actions of the scorer only

2. Limit consideration to whether a goal be disallowed for offside to the scorer's position for the final ball in only – after all, every other pass is 'just another pass' which VAR officials in multiple instances throughout the 90 minutes don't intervene on anyway.

2 top teams playing an exciting game of football for almost 90 mins then VAR destroyed the game.

As soon as the City goal was cancelled and I realised what for, I just turned it off. What is the point?

A game based upon reaction stirs up emotions, the excitement, the uncertainty the euphoria just wiped out as a collision in the box was deemed handball. Wolves had a similar one last week. It's pathetic.

This will turn fans away from the game.

I sat yesterday and watched the Watford winger dive at will and get fouls given to him repeatedly until his most blatant one earned him a yellow card. VAR could help the ref out with things like blatant cheating rather than the sterilisation of the game.

The goal line tech was relatively unobtrusive but it was always going to be the thin end of the wedge.

I'm out as far as the Premier League is concerned. Made an effort to get to see the cups last year (while they lasted) but the league is fast becoming farcical.

Use of technology is not a problem in itself, but if it's to be used well, it surely must help officials punish the unceasing cheating that's occurring. It's failing to do this, and that failure is compounded by the problems we've seen this season in the Premier League with many clearly ridiculous decisions.

These problems need to be sorted ASAP.