And I think that's why VAR has made the league look more biased.
I know fans give referees a lot of heat online, but I still think that, more or less, fans accept that referees will make errors. Having to make hundreds of split second decisions in the heat of the moment with players trying to constantly get inside your head and undermine you, often having limited visibility, with weighing up the text of the laws, versus managing individual players on the field, versus match control, versus conflicting pressures from audiences and referee managers.....that they're going to get it wrong sometimes, but usually there's the idea that they're at least having an honest go of it.
I know from my time refereeing, sometimes you just make the wrong decision. No different to players making the wrong decisions - sometimes it just happens (though the higher you go, the fewer of these you should make). Sometimes you know it's the wrong decision as soon as you give it.
I know I've also had games where I've made several major bad calls and they've all gone against one team. No particular reason for that - just a bad day at the office.
VAR has none of those 'heat of the moment' considerations. You can't put it down to an honest mistake in the moment So, when you look at a clearly wrong decision - and we've already had a number of those this season, and you eliminate 'heat of the moment', there's not much left. Sure, early stages, nerves and uncertainty about precisely when to interfere will have an impact, but after a while that doesn't hold. So, fans are left to answer their own question of 'why?'.
And when the FFA not only doesn't hold referees (including VAR) accountable by making them spend a week or two on the sideline after terrible decisions. The full-time VAR in particular constantly makes appalling decisions. FFA doesn't come out and say 'it was wrong' - in fact, when they published 'The Whistle' they would either pretend clearly wrong decisions were correct, or just refuse to even address the bad ones (compared to the weekly blog by the MLS where they're very honest and upfront about whether a decision was correct, incorrect, debatable - or even 'correct but it shouldn't have taken nearly as long').
So, by the VARs actions alone, it doesn't take much for 'intent' to become the only explanation that makes sense for wrong decisions.
Then you have the culture of the FFA to cover up these errors - and it starts to look like not just one or two referees with a personal agenda, but something at the institutionalised level. I mean, don't forget when the WU player came on and interfered in the PA, something which requires a penalty kick but only an indirect was awarded - yet the ref and VAR were okay to referee next week despite literally not knowing the text of the laws. And nothing from the FFA.
All I'm saying is that the way VAR is performed and the response of the FFA starts to give the perception of the above.
And I think it's very safe to say - as an objective fact - that most of the incorrect VAR decisions have favoured the bigger team in a match. That has happened almost universally.
It started to improve a little late last season, but clearly it's back to normal this season. Back when it was at its worst, you could predict which team would be screwed over (and I'm not talking about VAR correctly intervening here) simply by looking at which was the bigger club - and almost every time you'd be right.
I mean, look at the handball we copped in the first game. I still maintain that the new laws allow for that to have NOT been a foul and I've argued my reasoning there, but we begrudgingly accepted it if it sets the standard. Not to mention the other one given that weekend.
Both times the smaller team on the day copped the wrong end of the VAR.
Last weekend, 2 very similar handball offences, neither awarded a penalty - and both committed by the bigger team on the day. And defending one, Delovski came out with a statement that is just ignorant of other incidents and even the laws itself.
So, yeah, all this considered, things LOOK very dodgy.
In the Australian print of the laws it used to have a phrase - BE FAIR and BE SEEN TO BE FAIR.
Whether the FFA and it's referee accomplish the former is obviously highly contentious (at best). But I don't think it's contentious to say that they fail hard on the latter.
But that's always been the case - even back when the MRP would charge players for incidents the ref missed, no different.