I didn't say I didn't like it and accept it, I am pretty sure we (me and you) had a lot of back and forth on this pre WC and it was the same arguments, there are things I value and you do not and vise versa that are going into our own views. It feels a little like a BREXIT discussion where there is a circular discussion with both sides convinced they were right and if I am honest with you I just couldn't be bothered to type them all out.
It really does boil down to the fact I like football and I don't think there needs to be any drastic changes, the real big balls ups are few and far between and imho the way to improve refereeing is to accept there is a human element and some mistakes do happen along with the reset the fact that contact does not equal a foul. I don't think the speed of the game or anything like that is making the ref make more mistakes, I think the number of cameras, slow motion, and gobbrick commentators are highlighting errors that are always there. This and the increased diving and simulation is what is making people want VAR, I do not think VAR will reduce diving in a world where contact equals a foul as people will be more inclined to go down knowing that slow motion will see contact.
I think that the introduction of anything so game changing as VAR the onus is on those that are changing it to prove its a net benefit and I am a little bemused that they have introduced it on the big stage prior to it working correctly. Because it gets a few decisions right does not make it a net benefit, you may not agree but where VAR and its performance is the major discussion point on most shows there is a cost there, I will go through these later if you wish but it has been discussed and I think both sides made their points and these have not changed.
Dude - I am sorry if I came across dismissive not the intent but I was keen on not going over old ground.