THE World Cup was enjoyed by most, except perhaps by fans of the favourites, but it will probably be remembered in history as the first at which VAR, Video Assisted Referee, was used.

It was always going to be a little risky. It had only been seriously trialled in the major leagues of six countries for a season and only in the USA did it seem to get universal acclaim.

Those who thought it would remove all controversy were sadly disappointed, especially the 300,000-plus Columbian supporters who signed a petition claiming it proved their game against England should be replayed.

VAR is not like goal-line technology, which shows whether the ball has crossed the line or not without dispute.

VAR still relies on the referee’s opinion.

Take the Portugal v Morocco game where VAR drew the referee’s attention to Ronaldo smashing his elbow into an opponent’s face.

Many would have judged this to be violent conduct worthy of a red card but after viewing, the referee only showed a yellow.

Later in the game, after another trip to the television viewing area, the referee gave a penalty for what looked to many, as ball-to-hand and not hand-to-ball.

In England’s opening game against Tunisia, the TV clearly showed Harry Kane wrestled to the ground.

The referee whose attention was elsewhere, did not see it, but the expected prompt from the VAR didn’t come.

The Brazilian referee who was the VAR on that match has since admitted he made a mistake.

Instead of alerting the on-field referee, he checked, looking for the chance to support the referee as he found Kane’s arm on the opponent.

He should have alerted the referee although he has since said it was a clear penalty.

This was one of three errors in the group stages acknowledged by FIFA, which made some changes to the procedure.

Overall, there were a greater number of fouls that would not have been spotted but for VAR, so it can be said, it was a gamble that paid off.