Johnny Phillips: Controversial VAR threatening to spoil 'iconic' World Cup moment

Marcos Rojo’s composed and clinical winning goal, Lionel Messi’s holy trinity of sublime touches, Nigeria’s indefatigable spirit and belief.

Then the letters V-A-R just leapt out from the keyboard. It shouldn’t have to be about VAR. Why does everything have to be about VAR? This is turning into a decent World Cup. It is not being made remotely better by VAR.

The thing about all this is that articulate and respected pundits on both sides of the fence have been making sound and solid arguments for and against VAR’s use. For every VAR Luddite, wincing and turning away in disgust at its use, there is a VAR convert spreading the technological gospel to anyone who will listen. We have all heard the arguments for and against. Each decision agonised over time and again.

But the more sinister effects of VAR are now starting to emerge. Referees, already under immense pressure, are being undermined further. Two of the stand-out incidents of last week were the penalty decisions in the Portugal v Iran and Nigeria v Argentina clashes. One was given, one was not.

Neither was a penalty, no matter how loosely the laws of the game are interpreted. It was inconceivable to make any argument for either handball being deliberate. The players in question were struck on the hand at point blank range. They were unequivocally not penalties. Yet both decisions were flagged up by the VAR and the referee was then obliged to look at them. It was a complete waste of time. The VAR unnecessarily questioned the good judgement of the referee on the pitch and, in the case of the Iran game, led to a correct call being reversed in favour of an incorrect one. All it illustrated was that the VAR for those games did not understand the rules of the game, that they were just as imperfect as the referees on the pitch and always will be.

The players, meanwhile, sensed blood. They saw that the referee on the pitch had been undermined and began to harangue him further at each opportunity. It really was unedifying stuff. The distraction of VAR put the referee under intolerable pressure whilst the players lost their focus and became obsessed with trying to win decisions on the back of a referral.

There is a danger that the iconic moment of this World Cup will not be a phenomenal winning goal or a nation celebrating but instead an irate winger running over to a match official miming the shape a television monitor.

In the wake of both games, Rio Ferdinand professed his support for VAR on the basis that it was adding to the drama. Well, if that’s the case why not introduce a panel vote? Line up ten officials with a yes or no button for each decision. DEADLOCK! Send it out to the audience to decide. Are we looking for a football match or a reality entertainment show here? If you think the game football does not contain enough drama as it is then maybe it’s not the sport for you.

A great example of VAR working came during injury-time of South Korea’s win over Germany, where the offside decision was over-ruled in favour of the Koreans who were awarded the goal. VAR advocates can point to that as a success. Alan Shearer was one such supporter. “When VAR works like that it’s magnificent,” he triumphantly declared. Slightly undermined by his tweet two days earlier that, “VAR is complete and utter bollocks.”

What cannot be denied is that VAR’s use at this World Cup has been premature. There have been too many inconsistencies and errors for it to have been deemed a success. It needs much more work, more experienced VAR officials and a greater understanding of the laws of the game before it can be rolled out at a major tournament again.

There were many teething problems when the third umpire was introduced to test match cricket in 1992. 26 years on, the system has improved significantly. Paul Farbrace, England’s assistant cricket coach, said this week, “The poor referee has to run off the field and look at a monitor when there’s 50,000 people in the stadium and then make a decision. He’s getting no help whatsoever, it doesn’t seem to be working. I like the idea of goal line technology and I like the idea of outlawing blatant diving and cheating. In cricket it works exceptionally well because the umpires on the field get a lot of support from those off the field. I think football has a lot to learn from cricket.”

But regardless of the pros and cons of VAR, there has been a sea change to this sport. One of the great strengths of football has always been the capacity for development during the course of a match. To witness a game gather a pace, intensity and quality. The great matches have this uninterrupted flow as both teams rise to the challenge. Almost as if the players find their way into an elite zone of competition that raises the standard.

That has gone forever with VAR. It is not just the stoppages. It has got into the players’ heads to the point that the most innocuous incident - that would barely have registered previously - is now being questioned by players who feel they can gain a competitive advantage. Another layer of cynicism and gamesmanship has been added. Players are becoming distracted. We saw some great passages of play during Argentina’s victory over Nigeria, but imagine how much better it could have been if the players had been completely focussed on the football, if the match had been allowed to flow.

If football with VAR is your thing then that is fine, it is probably here to stay, but the game has been fundamentally changed far beyond correcting the odd error. The accuracy of decision-making may improve but the quality on the pitch is suffering.