That's the thing though, they didn't.
Everybody who moans about VAR conveniently forgets that before VAR was a thing MOTD would be filled with Premier League managers every week, and internet boards would be chokka of moaning fans lamenting refereeing decisions and saying "the refs need help". The pressure for helping the refs got so big at one point a few clubs were mooting legal action.
It's just a revisionist fallacy that everybody was happy before VAR because that just isn't true.
I didn't claim everyone was happy - in fact, the appeal of football is that people will not be happy at its uneven and uncertain outcomes. Football does not exist to make people *happy*, it is there to entertain, amuse, provide distraction, in the same way any other artistic or sporting pursuit does.
Generally however, people did accept that officiating was an art; in fact, the "I wouldn't give that as a blooming *penalty*, the foul has to be a bit more than that in the box" is as old as the hills. As you correctly say, one of the reasons VAR came about is because clubs (not fans, of course, but the clubs and their owners) wanted to start legal action. Another is that the TV companies felt it would produce additional content. The thoughts of fans weren't relevant; they are only used after the fact to justify the change. Now there are even live Twitter updates from the refereeing authorities in real time, explaining decisions and delays as if they are a train company. You can hear audio from the VAR room too, as if anyone cares.
So this is what you have. Lawfare. Hope everyone is happy.
There is a big difference between an incident not being seen and one which has been dissected to the point where it becomes a meaningless exercise. "After review, number 8's arm is in an unnatural position, does not have a defence in my view given the distance between the ball and the player, and the ball hits the player below the T shirt line, so my decision is a penalty kick" - just nonsense. Shut up explaining it to us. The claim now that VAR is a better authority because it operates on a post facto, legalistic structure rather than the application of the on-field referee's own fiat is totally undermined because the laws *are subjective* in nearly every single case.
I think I might be one of very few people - perhaps the only person here - who has played football which was televised. The game, watched back on TV, bears no relation to the one which was played. "I had loads of space there but it didn't feel like it at the time" "I was clipped there but it does look like I dived" etc etc.
Fouls are committed, felt, heard, and given in the context of the on field environment. Having it all played back in super slow motion and then judged is anathema. Football is an experience, it is not something to be judged only by the eyes. It has never been about facts. It is a spontaneous, flowing, visceral game which gained popularity because of its uncertain outcomes - a sport which, in VAR, has adopted the clothing of lesser sports; clothing which doesn't suit it.
Bin the whole lot.
