I think this was your first post in the chain?:
"Before VAR came in, 82% of decisions made by officials were correct.
Since VAR has been introduced, 96% of decisions made have been correct.
It was always needed but we need to entice and train a better talent pool of officials because the current crop and depth of talent aren’t/isn’t good enough.
The technology itself is fine."
Leaving aside the paradox in saying the results are much better but the people operating it aren't good enough, I, for one, haven't seen anything that supports that improvement in correctness other than by quoting the organisations that are responsible for operating the thing in the first place.
Before I believe that stuff, I would like to see the methodology explained (what does correct decision even mean: what is a correct decision? who determines correctness? on what basis? which incidents were determined to be correct? which weren't?) and the detailed analysis published so they can be analysed by third parties and the results assessed critically.
It just isn't good enough to say, "the PL says ....", "PGMOL says ....", "IFAB says ....", or "independent panel" when in reality it's five washed up ex-players and referees on a PL financed gravy train. They aren't KCs with any professional integrity to call upon.
So, no, I won't believe those statistics until people who are smarter than me have reviewed and assessed them independently.
As for the quality of VAR officials, I think it's a hopeless situation for them. They have my sympathy. The corrupt bastards. They are expected to apply rules that are largely subjective to the letter and consistently, without the excuse referees used to have that they are only human and have to make decisions instantly. It just isn't possible. And each time they get a decision wrong, they have fucked a game up.
You couldn't pay me to do it.
