Will VAR Change Football for the Better?

I would imagine they've stayed the hell clear of anything subjective. So, just offsides then, and about 3 decisions the ref has missed?

+1 for seeing the stats, everyone's glossing over this by saying "it's more accurate". Yet Doku boots McAllister in the chest with a high foot, and VAR are fine with it. Calling it wrong after 1/2/5 minutes of multiple slow mo angles far worse than ref missing it in heat if the moment.

My other huge "subjective" one..."I see two hands on his back but no evidence of a push" from the Arsenal Newcastle game.

Oh and a more recent one, Man U fan cam (Terry Flewers) saying no penalty the other night against Newcastle - Gordon's missing half his heel Terry has been keen to claim he's being fair minded about VAR and doesn't let Tribalism get in his way. He's let himself down badly here / shown his true colours.

So they are 3 subjective calls, that to me, were objective. Which is a further muddying if the waters because some will (somehow!) see them as subjective.

And we've had VAR intervene on numerous similar issues despite the subjectivity. And every week Howard Webb says they made the right call, even if he said the complete opposite a few weeks previously

I almost don't know what to write in reply....

You think that a sport is better when a big factor in a team's success is dodgy decisions? Why is every other sport on the planet in complete contradiction of that?

Can you imagine Lewis Hamilton getting a 10 sec penalty and then, after the race, realising it was a wrong decision but not being bothered as he will prob get a lucky decision in another race? Insanity.

Were you happy when Maradonna handballed a goal against us in the world cup all those years ago, knocking us of the WC or would you have preferred VAR to highlight what a cheating POS he is/was and have the goal disallowed?

Are you happy with any dodgy decision that knocks your team out of a competition, no matter how wrong?

Are you happy thay your team could be relegated, miss out winning the Prem or qualifying for Europe due to one incorrect decision that VAR could have corrected?

VAR isn't perfect but decisions are massively more accurate and most of the bhing is over a tiny number of issues

I agree...but:

Which is more annoying - the ref missing it in the heat of the moment. Or a room full of people with access to slo motion replays from multiple angles "missing" it (or failing to intervene).

Imagine if City draw 0-0 tomorrow and the Score is 1-1 in the Arsenal game, and an Everton defender does a Doku in the last minute. What happens? The precedent is "no penalty" (Doku Vs Liverpool, natch)

If the ref waves it away and VAR (correctly, IMO) intervene to say "pen" - then City are "robbed" of a 4peat.

If they keep shtum , then "Arsenal were robbed" and "PGMOL are corrupt, giving City the title because the refs enjoy their jollys out in Saudi"

Curveball - maybe the ref gives it. Does VAR intervene? (Despite the fact I don't think they would have intervened if the Doku one had been given, I think they have a duty wrt consistency to not give it, and say "high boots in the chest are fine apparently")

A possible answer regarding "subjectivity" is to send the ref to the screen. He's making the decision, he should have the access to the better angles etc, to make his own mind up. Potentially a problem with the sky high rate of refs changing their minds after looking at the screen? Or is that VAR "working"?

VAR is here to stay (for better or worse). Bit weird that we're 5 years in, and we are still debating key areas where it needs improving.

It's been pointed out to me on X that the decision was upheld 3-2 by the "dodgy decision review panel" and also that they unanimously voted 5-0 that VAR shouldn't have intervened (the latter fact I was unaware of)

Yes I was. We're on the same page

{Going back to the stats, I take it this incident wasn't recorded as an error? Due not least to the 3-2 verdict that it wasn't a foul, and the 5-0 verdict that VAR shouldn't have intervened. What happens if it's 3-2 that it was a foul? Do Liverpool get an apology?? }

Also made out getting the ball is relevant (it's not). Personally I don't think he did to any meaningful level, but may possibly have clipped the ball first. As you say, your follow through can still be a foul.

The other thing that annoys me (more generally) is pundits going about "no intent" (also irrelevant)

100% this. The fact that Frimley111R doesn't get this tells me that he isn't a football fan at all.

I've been to Argentina a few times. When 7 year old kids find out I'm English, they shout "la mano de dios" and run away laughing. The AFA's English language podcast is called Hand of Pod. Steve Hodge, who got Maradona's shirt after the game, recently sold it for £7m. That handball, plus the 2nd goal, makes that game legendary. It's exactly what football is about.

Frimley is willing to lose all that to get a decision right. Ffs...I have no words. He's no fan of football.

I'm not an F1 expert, but wasn't their a very controversial end to the season a year or two back. Hamilton overtaken by Verstappen on the last lap following an iffy decision by the steward or whatever. Mercedes were furious.

I thought I read that the whole fuss over that actually increased interest for the following season. More sponsorship, more money, increased viewers on Netflix.

Maybe football with it's occasional howler has got it right, and the other sports need to adopt this approach.