VAR - a good or bad thing?

It's tough, but I'm leaning more on the "against" side of the argument. It looks great when it works well, like the Leicester goal on Tuesday, but when it doesn't it creates a real mess.

Football is a fast-paced game. Proponents of VAR point out how well it works in cricket and rugby, but they are stop-start sports. Pace and momentum are much more important in football.

It also leaves me a bit confused about what the role of on-field officials is. The Leicester goal for example, the linesman put his flag up. If the ref had seen it and blown his whistle before Iheanacho put the ball in the net, what happens then? Is it better for the ref to just ignore the linesman and play on, then review the replays later? If so, is there much point in having linesmen at all?

As you've suggested, I think the bigger problem is the culture of the game. Due to the influence of TV, we already talk far too much about refereeing and this filters through to players on the pitch. No other sport really has the ritual pressuring of refs like football does. It's something FIFA has allowed to fester for decades without addressing it, instead prioritising silly concepts like 'Golden Goal' extra time and bookings for taking your shirt off. Far from making their job easier, I can only see VAR putting refs under even more pressure and making football analysis even more tedious.

Perhaps we just need to accept that its only a game and mistakes happen?

This is a fair point. Really any changes made to the game should go right down to grassroots level.

That's the point, basically.

Hypothetically, imagine we played Manchester United at home and drew 0-0 but had a 'goal' disallowed even though replays showed it crossed the line. Then, in the replay at Old Trafford, we lost because of a goal awarded by goalline technology.

I think goalline technology is a good thing and should be used as widely as possible, but that scenario does raise a debate and highlights the issue of having different procedures at different levels of football. VAR complicates the matter even further.

So what I'm saying is that perhaps the best solution is not to have it at all, or at least to have guidelines on which competitions it can and can't be used in.

It should be the same as cricket in the sense that the team captain is responsible for deciding if a review of VAR is wanted. The number of reviews should be limited per game, not per half.

This will ensure that the players are more responsible for deciding if to make the foul in the first place and this would ensure VAR use is kept to a minimum and the refs are not being badgered for every foul

Perhaps, but this is just a trial. You don't spend millions installing it at hundreds of grounds from day one, better to test it first, see what works well and what doesn't, before rolling something out nationally.

I'm not sure how I feel about VAR in general but don't have a particular issue with it starting out as Premier League only, then perhaps extending down a few leagues as costs decrease. Who's paying for installing VAR systems at Bamber Bridge and Prescot Cables, then having hundreds of games watched remotely every Saturday?

Lower level clubs are allowed to use artificial pitches if they decide it's to their benefit. 

A principle reason for manager, player and fan disquiet is whenever there is a feeling of having been cheated by what they think is a poor decision. Sometimes we feel that the ref' is deliberately biased but mainly it is when we feel we see complete incompetence [very often at our level I am afraid]. Goal-line tech where used takes all the heat out of what otherwise are issues that fester for years [eg twice in England vs Germany]

The abiding need is that key decisions [eg. goal-line, offside, penalty, serious foul play] are correctly and fairly called. Win or lose.

I am not concerned about 'breaking the game up' as this can be done quite easily by cynical managers and players [remember Barrow last year? how many times do added time subs rob a team of attacking momentum?].

Regardless of the stop-start nature of other sports-it works. Look how Hawkeye has cleared up the stupidity and time wasting in tennis. Rugby's 'try or no try'[both codes] not only works well it adds to the theatre of the game. The ability of the TV official to draw the ref's attention to off-the-ball incidents is also a plus.

It won't be a quick fix, there is lots to sort out, mistakes may be made and the trialling needs to be intensive but I don't honestly see what we have to lose by trying.

Oh, if only that was true. 150 years ago the game was far more honest. The need to win, particularly where money is involved, has developed over the years to the point where winning at all costs now exists. Technology, along with changes to the Laws of the game, is a means of keeping pace with increased cheating in an attempt to get a more honest result. Like all sports sadly the cheats are winning.
Anything which leads to a reduction in cheating must be a good thing. I am constantly amazed that pundits try and justify diving by claiming, under microscopic review, that “there was contact”. It’s a contact sport!!
I’m sure referees hold back from honest decisions for fear of sanctions from the authorities, under pressure no doubt from the financial powerbrokers. Money and corruption go hand in hand. If people stop their sky subscriptions, as they are doing due to the diving etc., then the authorities act. Sponsors want maximum exposure for their products.
Thierri Henry handballs France into the World Cup finals and yet nothing of any significance happens, but Cantona kicks a vile and offensive fan and he gets a nine month ban. 
Just look at the corruption involved in World Cup voting. From the top downwards the game now stinks!

The cynic in me thinks the TV guys might quite like the VAR system.
A few 60-90 second breaks during the game might just allow them to slip in a few "words from our sponsors" and OUR game will end up like American Football
Heaven forbid!