VAR verdict reached after Man City vs Liverpool farce with changes demanded

I know what you're thinking. Not another VAR debate!

But here's the thing - we know VAR is going nowhere. Football's lawmakers have decided it is the present and the future so that is that. But how can we improve the current system?

The technology was on everyone's lips again on Sunday after the disallowed goal at the conclusion of Liverpool's defeat by Manchester City at Anfield.

It didn't change the result, but the Reds will now be without Dominic Szoboszlai for their trip to Sunderland on Wednesday night while City will be hoping they don't lose out on the title by a single goal.

The correct decision was ultimately reached after a lengthy delay, but at what cost?

Our reporters have their say on how VAR should be tweaked to stop us all from banging our heads against the wall...

READ MORE : Ex-Premier League referee explains why VAR was RIGHT in Man City vs Liverpool controversyREAD MORE : Marc Guehi bites back over Liverpool boos as Man City star gets last laugh

JOIN US ON FACEBOOK! Latest news, analysis and much more on Mirror Football's Facebook page

John Cross

We simply cannot go back with VAR. So we have to go forward.

My idea is quite simple: introduce set VAR teams. If you have the same ref, the same linos, the same team with the same VARs.

That way you get understanding between the group. You get a level of consistency that is missing from Premier League games.

You would also get a clearer understanding between the group as to when VAR jumps in, what constitutes handball, when a red card should be awarded for denial of a clear and obvious goalscoring opportunity and all manner of subjective decisions.

Yes, I get that it only covers consistency in each group. But anything which can be done to raise standards and improve understanding is a good thing.

Now, the Professional Game Match Officials (PGMO) have fewer (but more specialised VARs) but say it is nigh-on impossible to have teams. Why? Because each week certain refs can’t do games because they are known supporters. Like Michael Oliver and Newcastle, for example.

It is a tall order. But it would help where possible, in my view. Fans, players, managers just want consistency.

Jeremy Cross

The obvious choice would be to scrap it. But this would mean football rulers admitting a huge mistake in introducing it in the first place.

So if we have to continue with such a farcical process, how about picking people with common sense and brains to use it?

You can have all the technology in the world, but if someone cannot interpret scenarios with a modicum of intelligence, then there's no point having it in the first place.

Which leads to scenarios like the laughable one at Anfield. The whole system needs to undergo a complete overhaul ahead of next season.

Off-sides should be awarded with immediate effect, for example, instead of allowing play to continue and risk a player getting injured.

Andy Dunn

If you think VAR is a tortuous, flawed process right now, then wait until it is being used for second yellow cards and bookings at the World Cup. That should hurry things along a bit.

As it happens, the incident at the end of the Liverpool-Manchester City game is actually a rare one that should NOT be used as a stick with which to beat VAR. It was freakish but VAR implemented the rules.

The fundamental problem with VAR, though, is quite clearly the inordinate amount of time some interventions are taking.

Which is why we need to re-establish - if it was ever established in the first place - the ‘clear and obvious’ principle.

And to focus the minds of the VAR officials on that principle, perhaps we could do away with the process of referring the referee to the pitch side TV monitor.

If the VAR decision was final, would he or she intervene in borderline situations? In pushing-and-pulling situations? In debatable handball situations?

It would at least save a bit of time. And anything that saves a bit of time in modern football is welcome.

What would YOU do to improve VAR? Have your say in the comments.

Dan Marsh

My biggest gripe with VAR is it doesn't do what it says on the tin: it's meant to be for 'clear and obvious errors' but, sadly, it feels like the people running it absolutely lose all common sense just when it's required most.

Clear and obvious means clear and obvious. And yet how many utterly absurd calls have we seen? The implementation of technology doesn't have to hinder the game; look at goal-line technology and how effective that has been. No thrills, no fuss. Sadly I can't ever see VAR following suit.

In terms of how we can make it more bearable, I wouldn't be opposed to a cap on timings. Basically, if we're having to look at something 10 times over to see if there's an infringement, it's not clear and obvious. Let's give the Stockley Park gurus 60 seconds tops to identify an infringement or play on. No more five-minute lite investigations, please.

If we're stuck with VAR, let's at least do away with these ridiculous long waits for decisions.

James Whaling

I watch a whole range of sports outside of football and rest assured, video technology is not perfect in any of them. However, football is the worst. By a distance.

So, what can football learn from other sports that have a smoother process? I think cricket is, by and large, the best example of using technology sparingly and with greatest effect.

It's dependent on the captains reviewing an on-field decision they disagree with. They are allowed three unsuccessful challenges per innings in Test matches, after which the on-field decision stands.

In rugby league, there is also a captain's challenge. Each team is allowed one unsuccessful challenge per game. If the evidence is inconclusive, the referee's decision stands, but the team retain their review.

I think if each captain in football was given two unsuccessful challenges per game, it would cut out the number of long reviews and make sure only game-changing moments are reviewed. As captains will not want to waste their challenges.

Click here to read article