I support VAR but done in the right way that actually addresses the main issue with officiating: the game has progressed to the point that no human, honourable or bent, can be reasonably expected to get every call right with the speed and nuance that exists in modern football. I do think there are dodgy things going on with some of the officiating we receive but, beyond that, I think most of the issues are just down to no one being able to accurately assess common situations, in the run of play, without some unknown if bias or miscalculation. Basically, most of the issues aren't incompetence or corruption, they are just failings of our senses and cognitive abilities in the context of the current state of football (which will only get worse as tactics progress further and players become even more athletic and skilful).
All of that said, the way it needs to be implemented to address these inadequacies are there-fold:
1. As mentioned previously in the thread, make the review/decision making process fully transparent by micro phoning all match officials engaged in judging any incident, whether in the run of play or on video replay. This will not only allow of visibility into the reasoning behind outcomes but also deeply instill and expectation that the officials will be held accountable for any decision made. The worst decisions are often made in darkness as there is plausible deniability and little, if any, consequence to the outcome. There should not be any ivory towers.
2. Mandate that officials must talk through a decision, in real time, much the same way Rugby now requires. There should never be an opportunity for an official to say "oh, well, that is not what I thought should happen" after a review of an incident. We should know exactly what was thought by them vocalising their thoughts, even in the case of being wrong. There would be much more sympathy for officials if we could see how they may have arrived at the wrong conclusion in the first place, rather than pulling back the curtain, presenting themselves, and reading the edict.
3. The VAR team should be able to insist on outcomes independent of the referee or other officials on the field. If when and how VAR can be used within the context of each game is left up to the referee, the main problems with officiating will by-and-large remain unresolved, as they can just simply ignore the guidance of the VAR team or not even solicit it in the first place. If the linesman obviously got a offside call wrong, and the VAR team can determine that within 15 seconds of a disallowed goal (which is a perfectly reasonable expectation given we, the spectators, are usually shown these offside decisions within that time frame), than they should be able to overrule any call on the field with that determination. Judgement, like other analytical endeavours, should be assessed entirely on correct or incorrect outcomes. This talk of "we do not want to undermine the authority of the referee" is absurd; do you think a stock analyst would keep their authority if they were wrong with the assessment 80% of the time? Would a doctor? Why are referees not held to the same standard, with the caveat that their position is very difficult (for the reasons I have listed above) and so requires external technological assistance (also much like the other professions mentioned).
Ultimately, whether VAR succeeds or fails (in the eyes of the viewer, where it matters) will be down to transparency and accountability. Otherwise it will only be new, high performance ceramic discs on a Porsche which has had the brake lines cut (in Liverpool, obviously).
