Newcastle United's Dan Burn laughs as Sky Sports debate whether Antoine Semenyo's disallowed goal should have stood
VAR comes into effect in the Carabao Cup at the semi-final stage, and last night it handed Newcastle United a lifeline in their tie against Manchester City.
However you feel about VAR, it doesn't seem to be going away, and last night it was front and centre as Newcastle fell to a 2-0 defeat to Manchester City in the first leg of the Carabao Cup semi-final.
That scoreline could have been worse had Antoine Semenyo's second goal of the night stood. Instead, after a five-minute VAR check where it was analysed down to the last possible pixel, it was deemed that Erling Haaland was offside and he was interfering with Malick Thiaw's ability to get to the shot, therefore it was ruled out.
When a check takes that long, you'd not find anyone who would argue against it being given. Newcastle fans have taken to social media after the incident to say the goal should just have been given, that's how ridiculous it was.
Dan Burn had a good laugh about VAR's decision to overturn Antoine Semenyo's goal
Someone else who clearly thought it was ridiculous was Newcastle's very own Dan Burn, who was in the Sky Sports studio last night. When the topic was brought up, Burn started to chuckle to himself. He did later say his piece, and we think his sentiments echo those of pretty much everyone watching. When Jamie Redknapp threw it to Burn, saying, "You enjoyed it", Burn laughed it off.
"Yeah, I thought it was a great decision, for me, that's why VAR was brought in.
"To be honest, I do think it's the right decision, I just don't like this subjective offside. I think it's either offside or it's not.
"We don't want to see that, but on the letter of the law it was the right decision"
A clock needs to be put on these VAR decisions to keep the game moving
We don't think that anyone is debating whether or not the goal was rightly or wrongly disallowed, but the criticism is about the process.
The goal was given on the pitch, and without VAR, nobody would have questioned it. Therefore, going into such granular detail for five minutes while everyone in the stadium freezes their arses off is clearly re-refereeing the game, and that's what the issue is.
There should be a clock put on VAR decisions. If the VAR can't make the call after 30 seconds, the on-field decision stands. If it takes more than that to determine the validity of an incident, then it's not a 'clear and obvious error', and therefore the referee's decision is final.
