The early use of Video Assistant Referees on British shores has caused almost as much controversy as the dodgy decisions the system is intended to eradicate from football.

I have always been rather sceptical of the use of VAR. On the one hand, I am all for giving referees – often on the end of ridiculous personal abuse and constant accusations of being born out of wedlock – a little bit of assistance to get the major calls correct as often as possible.

But on the other, is the casting of the referee as pantomime villain, however unfairly, not all part of the fun? And if you eradicate human error from the game altogether and every decision is correct, what on earth are we all going to talk about down the pub? Thankfully, it doesn't look as though VAR would do anything of the sort.

The first ever goal awarded in the UK after the use of VAR came from the boot of Leicester’s Kelechi Iheanacho in Tuesday night’s FA Cup tie against Fleetwood Town, who was correctly adjudged to have been onside after the referee consulted VAR.

But just as proponents of the use of technology were getting dangerously close to patting themselves on the back, along came Chelsea’s tie against Norwich the following evening to remind them that pride comes before the fall.

The referee, Graham Scott, waved away three Chelsea penalty claims on the night, booking Pedro, Willian and Alvaro Morata for simulation in the process.

The bookings for Pedro and Morata were unquestionably correct. They had cheated, and Scott was competent enough to see it, and then strong enough to punish it. But the decision to refuse a penalty for Timm Klose’s tackle on Willian was less clear-cut.

Hence, the final call fell to VAR Mike Jones, who watched the incident 10 times over 44 seconds, and decided that no ‘clear and obvious error’ had been made. All well and good, until referee’s body Professional Games Match Officials Ltd pointed out that Jones should in fact have viewed the incident in slow motion, which would have revealed the contact that sent Willian sprawling.

So, is VAR clearing things up at all? Just because contact was made, it doesn’t mean that a penalty logically follows. Who initiated the contact? A quick scan of Twitter in the aftermath of the match showed that the court of public opinion was split on the issue.

There is also the fear that because of this incident, VAR’s will be instructed to take more time to review incidents, disrupting the flow of the game. If they can’t tell if a decision is correct after 44 seconds and 10 viewings, then how long will it take?

From a neutral perspective, the controversy was good to see. It suggested that because, ultimately, decisions are still in human hands, there will be a degree of fallibility that will keep the conversation flowing over a pint or two (and the papers full, of course).

Antonio Conte, the Chelsea manager, was apoplectic, in the first instance because his team were denied a penalty, and secondly because his player was unfairly punished. But perhaps Conte should take note of the context in which the decision was awarded, and why VAR is deemed necessary in the first place.

If players such as his weren’t so keen to hit the deck in an attempt to con the referee on the pitch, then the incident involving Willian may not have been referred upstairs at all. It certainly looked like a penalty in real time, and in fact, it was only when the incident was slowed down that I felt it would have been a soft award.

Which shows that these decisions are still subjective, and with Pedro’s laughable attempt to con the referee probably still fresh in his mind, VAR Jones was more willing to give Norwich and Klose the benefit of the doubt.

When considering the possible implementation of VAR north of the border, I am sure that the SFA and SPFL are canvassing opinion from further afield.

In the Bundesliga, the experience has been mixed, with overuse by officials causing criticism. In Serie A though, it has proven far more successful. There has been the odd controversy, but of 1,078 VAR decisions made in the first half of the season, 49 out of 60 corrections made by VAR were shown to be correct. So, with the system in place, only 1% of VAR decisions were made in error, showing its value.

SFA head of referees John Fleming is known to be a massive fan of the system, and although SPFL bosses have reservations over the cost, surely it is only a matter of time before we see it in our top-flight.

As long as players are willing to con referees, the system will be needed, and as long as decisions remain ultimately in human hands, we will have enough to talk about down the boozer.