The more I see VAR in action, the more I'm against it in its current form. And I was a strong advocate of it originally, and I've seen it implemented successfully in other sports that I also follow closely. And I think it can be an asset in football.
But, as it stands now, it takes too long, it robs supporters in the ground of an organic match-going experience, and it's being used in a pedantic fashion, attempting to identify microscopic errors in slow-motion, rather than eradicating clear mistakes, which is what the technology should be about.
You can't ever have completely fair officiating because VAR can't look at numerous things that happen in the game. For example, if a referee makes a bad mistake, and gives a free-kick while a team is on the break, and denies them a great counter-attacking opportunity, that is beyond the scope of VAR. As are numerous other things.
So, in my view, it makes no sense to be so ridiculously pedantic over other decisions either. What everyone wants to see, or wanted to see, was clear and obvious errors being eradicated. Not for games to be decided by poring over slow-motion footage of replays, in relation to goals that no-one on the field of play even contested.
But I appreciate that lots of people disagree with that. For me, the only reason to interrupt the game for two minutes and then change the decision is if there has been an absolute howler. Whereas if the City goal had stood, it's quite possible that no-one would even have complained. Certainly, without TV no-one would have known that it was a handball.