View from the VAR side

"It's hard to know where to start," said West Bromwich Albion manager Alan Pardew last night, as he was asked about the impact the Video Assistant Referee had on his FA Cup Fourth Round win over Liverpool. And he wasn't about to be positive, either. "I don't think that is what we want to see going forward, whether you are a Liverpool or West Brom fan."

VAR is only a matter of weeks old in English football, and - as with anything new and slightly clunky - is taking time to accept. We've moaned long enough about the need for video technology and when it finally comes in we moan some more. In last night's cup tie, referee Craig Pawson referred to VAR and the eyes of virtual referee Andre Marriner (in a box somewhere in London) a total of eight times. Three incidents reviewed via the system proved to be key the game's outcome - including a disallowed West Brom strike, Liverpool winning a penalty, and a contested Baggies goal being allowed to stand.

In its match report, the London Evening Standard talked about VAR being used "...during an action-packed first half". The problem is, VAR slows down that action completely. Craig Dawson's goal took more than a minute to be judged offside via VAR. "Firstly, there is no communication from the referee to us," Pardew complained, adding that the bigger issue was the four minutes it took to judge the Liverpool penalty claim after Mo Salah went down in the Albion box in the 23rd minute. "You are going from high-tempo workrate to nothing," said Pardew. "We had a hastring [injury] just after that." (i.e. "Just sayin'").

It's something I noticed at Stamford Bridge two weeks ago when Chelsea played Arsenal in the Carabao Cup. VAR reviews of, first, César Azpilicueta and Calum Chambers' coming together, then a challenge on Cesc Fàbregas, and again when Victor Moses appeared to foul Alex Iwobi in the penalty area, seemed to take forever for referee Martin Atkinson to resolve. If the managers didn't know what was going on, the players on the pitch certainly didn't and nor did we up in the stand, bored by the tedious 0-0 stalemate unfolding. From a television point of view, it was the sort of pause broadcasters hate - dead air, effectively - as Atkinson repeatedly held his finger to his ear like Chris Morris's spoof newsreader in The Day Today.

For us paying fans, we could easily fill the downtime by posting facetious tweets, but for the players at risk of hamstrings cooling down, it must have felt like eternity. It is, of course, only sensible to assume that VAR simply needs more time to get used to. We've needed video technology for too long now, and now it's here we should embrace it. Jurgen Klopp, the defeated Liverpool manager last night, was certainly more stoic than Pardew: "Normally after a game I have to explain to you a defeat which was not deserved because we din't get a penalty or they scored another goal. Is it cool in January to have delays when it's cold, especially for the players? Maybe not, but it will become smoother and more fluent in the future."

Definitely not impressed was broadcaster Danny Baker, who launched into one of his periodic football rants (and of a veracity not seen since he laid into a combination of England's shameful 2016 European Championship game against Iceland, and Glenn Hoddle's commentary of it). Of the more repeatable tweets, "VAR is sucking all the life out of what was a pulsating cup tie. Literally draining the atmosphere. So, we may have a correct game by computer but dull match in flesh and blood. Absolutely awful. yet this terrible thing will be rolled out" and "What numbs a crowd is the idea that now THEY aren't the people at the event, they are just watching something that is being judged and relayed from some remote office. Supporters are now just extras at their own event. VAR MUST BE ABANDONED."

I have a suspicion that this will run. And run...

So VAR, so what?

Viewers of last night's BT Sport coverage of the FA Cup Third Round tie between Brighton and Crystal Palace may have noticed occasional mention of VAR or Video Assistant Referee. Well, I say "may" and "occasional", but if truth be told, the game was so dull that commentator Ian Darke spoke of little else (including the compelling insight that Bakary Sako's 25-yard equaliser for Palace was so straight and true that VAR wasn't needed to provide adjudication. Thanks for that.).

The curiosity around VAR last night was, perhaps, understandable, given that it was the first competitive game in England to have the technology available. As it turned out, it was only used the once, to help Andre Marriner adjudicate on Glenn Murray's 87th-minute winner for Brighton, but even then video pictures couldn't conclusively confirm whether the ball had brushed the forward's arm before crossing the line. It hadn't, but the fact that VAR and TV cameras still couldn't reach a decision shows that perennial arguments in football will still continue, even with the potential adoption of this system.

VAR is, for now, a limited technology solution for resolving disputes, being restricted to four types of incidents - goals, penalties, straight red cards and cases of mistaken identity. The game's legislative body, the International Football Association Board is expected to decide next March whether VAR will become a permanent part of the game. But despite is apparent limitations (with the caveat that the 'human' referee is still the absolute arbiter of any game), VAR is a step in the right direction.

Far too many games these days are dominated by refereeing controversies, and these are exacerbated by the fact that football is overscrutinised. Ever since Sky introduced up to 13 cameras positions at major games, with most now broadcast in high definition (including 4K resolution), there's very little that anyone watching around the world can miss. Which means that by the time a professional referee has made a judgement, it will have been dissected countless times by TV pundits and Twitter experts alike, giving very little room for simple human error. This, in turn, is leading to referees seeking stress counselling. Now, I know this won't garner that much sympathy from the rank and file football fan, but if there's something the game needs, it's engaged, competent referees whose professional capabilities match those of the multi-millionaire players they are employed to police. Technology can only help, and in this respect football can even be accused of being well behind the times. Many other sports have adopted technology to improve decision making, transparency and to resolve time-consuming disputes, so it’s about time the world's most popular sport follows suit. It won’t resolve some of the more subjective arguments, of course, but if it means reducing those tedious issues that put referees in the spotlight rather than the 22 players supposedly providing the active entertainment, that can only be a good thing.