In the short-lived history thus far of VAR, it’s most significant moment to date was of course in the Champions League semi-final between Man City and Spurs. The debate over the merits or otherwise were therefore naturally amplified when the same technology intervened this weekend to again decide the course of the result against City.

Before we dive into our analysis of VAR from the game, let us pause for a moment on the handball rule. The attempt to eliminate some of the ambiguity over ‘intent’ that has itself rained down controversy (see Man Utd vs PSG) has replaced it with a blanket rule that has taken the proverbial sledgehammer to the nutshell of the problem. I have do doubt that further clarifications will likely follow over the course of this season as the current rule seems untenable, but we will have to wait to see how stubborn the officiating bodies decide to be. 

Now regardless of your opinion on the handball rule, the important thing is that VAR got the decision 100% correct per the letter of the law, and more importantly, that it would not have been possible to do so without the intervention of the replays that clearly showed the handball took place.

This is the reason why VAR has been brought in.

A goal was scored that was technically against the rules of the game.

No ‘on field’ officials spotted the infringement.

The VAR official was able to see an infraction had occurred.

The goal was ruled out, and 1 point did not incorrectly become 3.

I have stated the above in clear and plain terms because it is important that these things are not confused.

The debate on the merits of the handball rule can take place on one side of things, but the merits of VAR should not be derailed by whatever arguments take place there.

No-one would be arguing the merits of VAR if the goal had been scored Maradona-style and ruled out, or if a player had been blatantly offside in the build up and if any of those had been correctly identified by VAR.

So VAR did its job, and did exactly what it is supposed to do – ensure that the result of a game and (remember that Man City triumphed by fewer than the 2-point swing that VAR created here) ultimately trophies are not determined by the fallibility of human vision and attention in a split-second.

Unfortunately, in its nascent existence, there will be moments like that early in the first half that highlight the fallibility of VAR itself – and that is that ultimately that too requires human intervention and judgement, albeit with the benefit of more time and more angles to come to the ultimate decision.

So earlier in the same game, when Rodri ended up on the floor as a Man City corner was coming in, why did VAR not award a penalty?

The reason for this is the same reason that the on-field referee did not award a penalty.

Because it was not a penalty.

I was very careful to clearly lay out some factual statements earlier in this same post. So I must be totally clear when I admit that the above is a value judgement and not a fact.

And herein lies the difficult when it comes to VAR and fouls.

Any fan attempting to conflate the two major moments in this game when VAR did and did not intervene will be missing what is important, and that is that while technology is now playing a key role in the whole process, for fouls such as the Rodri-Lamela incident, there remains a huge element of human interpretation in the process. Unfortunately for that bloke down the pub who always screams that his team was robbed by the refs, his team will remain in its constant state of burglarisation this season.

So if we assume that we are all destined to agree to disagree, how about we move on to the debate that has occurred in the wake of this game, and hail the progress that has accompanied VAR.

It is no longer possible for referees to collectively stay silent in the post-game discourse and for the assumed excuse to be “he must not have seen it, otherwise he would have given it”. Now that we know that referees have both the ability to review a moment countless times, and the time to take the extra heartbeat away from snap judgement and into considered decision making, the officials are under greater scrutiny than ever.

Neil Swarbrick, the “chief of VAR” came out after the game speaking to the BBC to provide extensive clarification, including the following:

“It was looked at. The arm was around the top of the body fractionally. If you look at that in slow motion multiple times, it’s exaggerated. We look at it in real time, that’s how we referee games and that’s how we use VAR,”

As a fan, I can’t ever remember being provided that level of detail into the thought-process behind a decision. It can only be a good thing if this level of dialogue continues between officials and fans – the silence of the past bred nothing but contempt and anger between fans and officials. It will no doubt remain the case that many fans will fiercely disagree with whatever justification is provided, but I feel the conversation is moving away from unconstructive rage into a more healthy direction.

I can remember when VAR was first talked about, people (only half) jokingly wondered what we would argue about in the pub once we could no longer argue about referees. This was evidently shown to be hilariously unprescient, but I feel at least our debates are treading new ground. Shouts over pints of flattening pints of Fosters are no longer the untethered “we was robbed” style of discourse, but instead tend towards a more analytical concern over the wording of an IFAB rule.

VAR is surely here to stay and will begrudgingly drag the sport that I love into the third decade of the 21st Century.