Long delays, irate managers and mixed messages - is VAR bad for game?

When the video assistant referee (VAR) stats are released at the end of the season, there will be a long list of correct interventions.

There will probably be three on the list from Sunday's Premier League matches.

Yet sometimes correct decisions come at a cost.

"The problem is what it is doing to the games, to the spectacle, with the amount of time it takes to get there," MOTD pundit Danny Murphy said of the VAR decisions.

"Do you want more right decisions or do you want a more free-flowing football experience that is genuine and spur of the moment?

"I get VAR is here to stay and we are trying our best to embrace it but the time it is taking sometimes is too much.

"For the good of the game, you'd have VAR gone - most people would say that I think."

It took more than two minutes to cancel Manchester United's penalty against Fulham and change it to a free-kick.

Almost three and a half minutes were lost when the VAR ruled out a Fulham goal for offside.

Aston Villa's disallowed goal against Brentford only came about after a four-minute stoppage.

Long delays, mixed messages and irate managers have been the story of the day. As has been the case on too many occasions.

After Sunday's incidents, many will agree with Murphy.

'Game started with terrible decision' - Silva

Manchester United's cancelled penalty was logical once you know what happened.

The problem is, as is usually the way with VAR, everyone was kept in the dark and left guessing.

Including, it seems, Fulham boss Marco Silva.

Logic often ends up being replaced by claims of some kind of conspiracy.

Referee John Brooks gave a penalty for Jorge Cuenca pulling Matheus Cunha's shirt, believing it had continued into the box.

Yet most people watching the game would have assumed it was given for Cuenca's tackle on Cunha.

It seems the fourth official, Darren England, thought this too. Silva said he was told by England the referee would be coming to the pitchside monitor.

But the penalty was given for holding, and that was outside the box.

Once the VAR, James Bell, identified that Cuenca had let go of Cunha before he got to the area it was a simple, factual change of decision.

The referee did not need to go to the monitor. The penalty becomes a free-kick. And the free-kick cannot be reviewed.

When Brooks announced the decision to the crowd, it lacked context. It did not bring the clarity that he had given the penalty for the holding.

Silva remains totally unconvinced.

"The game started with a terrible decision from John Brooks, a completely bad decision from him," Silva told BBC Sport after the game.

"It was a clear simple tackle on the ball. I understand VAR are now saying different things but the penalty was given for the tackle. Nobody is going to give a penalty for a pull."

He added on Sky Sports: "Because the decision was so bad, they found a different foul."

If we could hear the VAR audio during the game there would not be this confusion. But Fifa is against this happening any time soon.

This decision was going to get changed regardless, because Cuenca clearly won the ball. The VAR had to check that too, in case that was a penalty.

Overturning the penalty was simple, straightforward and importantly correct. But only if you know what you are looking for.

You can understand why Fulham feel aggrieved with VAR this season.

Ever since they had a Josh King goal wrongly disallowed through a VAR review at Chelsea in August, the world has been against them.

They have been involved in more VAR decisions than any other club. And of the 12 interventions, eight have gone against them.

Fulham have had five goals disallowed through a VAR review. The highest for any other club is two.

But the decision at Chelsea is the only one logged as a mistake by the Premier League's Key Match Incidents Panel.

On Sunday, Cuenca's 65th minute goal was ruled out for offside against Samuel Chukwueze.

Again, the correct decision but it took way too long. More than three minutes for a factual offside is unnecessary, especially with semi-automated technology.

The VAR spent time working out a possible offside offence against Cuenca, but Chukwueze looked more obviously offside.

Chukwueze was just ahead of the defence when Raul Jimenez struck his free-kick. That the ball smashed into the Manchester United wall did not reset the offside phase against Chukwueze.

It was a tight one and plenty of Fulham fans would ask what happened to the tolerance level. A Florian Wirtz goal for Liverpool was allowed on VAR review against them last month because of this.

Since the Wirtz decision, Fulham have a had three goals marginally offside. It seems like they never get the benefit of this tolerance level.

There will always be the point where a player is offside beyond it.

"I feel for my players, I feel for our fans but we have to respect the people in charge," Silva said.

Tammy Abraham thought he had a dream goal on his second debut for Aston Villa.

Four minutes after he had celebrated the goal it was ruled out on a VAR review.

Aston Villa have good reason to feel aggrieved.

Nineteen seconds is a long time to go back to disallow a goal in the Premier League. The ball was right by the corner flag at the opposite end of the pitch.

A very long time in fact – the furthest the VAR has ever gone back in the attacking phase.

Then there is the nature of the review itself. Did the VAR, Paul Tierney, really have conclusive proof the whole of the ball was over the line?

Cast your mind back to November 2023.

Newcastle United scored a goal against Arsenal and after a lengthy VAR review it was allowed to stand.

The VAR felt he did not have proof that Joe Willock had failed to keep the ball in play. Part of the problem was there was no camera directly on the line to show the curvature of the ball relative to the line.

Can we say Leon Bailey definitely failed to keep the ball in?

It looks like the ball was probably out. But probably shouldn't be enough for the VAR to rule out the goal.

"I have to accept the referee's decision but I think it isn't fair," Aston Villa boss Unai Emery said after the game.

You can see his point. Even Brentford boss Keith Andrews said he had not "seen conclusive proof".

But Andrews added: "It's the million dollar question [if fair to call it back so far] but it's the same phase of play. I'm comfortable."

Danny Murphy felt the decision emphasised his point on how much VAR takes away from the game.

"If you are Aston Villa, and that happened to you the other way round, then you would be saying the ball had gone out of play," Murphy said.

"But it goes back to what I originally said. Is it about getting the right decisions, or is it about the good of the game?"

Correct decision? Probably.

Correct for the VAR to intervene? Probably not.