As a columnist, I must have revisited the topic of VAR almost as much as one of its Clydesdale House HQ boys revisits a replay of a goal to find the tiniest hint of an infraction.
Hopefully, for you, the reader, it hasn’t yet got quite as annoying as the infernal technology which, in my view, is an ever increasing blight on the game.
There is also an element of banging my head against a brick wall in writing on the topic once more. The Scottish FA's head of refereeing operations, Crawford Allan, said last week after all that VAR is definitely here to stay. So, all my whining about it is ultimately futile, save for the cathartic outlet it affords my pent-up rage after another weekend of delays and dithering over decisions.
The reason I am returning to it though is because I want to pick Allan up on some of his arguments for the technology, and explain why he is completely missing the point in his defence of the impact it has had on the game.
READ MORE: SFA 'learn lesson' from release of Celtic vs Rangers offside images
For him, looking at it purely from the perspective of an official, there is absolutely no reason why you would dispense with VAR.
"Why would you want to get rid of something that factually does improve decision making in the game?” Allan told BBC Scotland.
“Especially when there's money involved in it at that level of the game.
"That's what it was brought in for - and we've got proof that it is adding value and accuracy to the Scottish football diet."
Part of Allan’s job of course is to stick up for officialdom and VAR falls under that umbrella, so I’m not having a go at him for that, but comments like these make him seem hopelessly out of touch with opinion on the terraces.
Leaving aside the 13 errors detected in the review of the latest round of fixtures, up considerably from the three that were detected during the first round of games, he may have a point on accuracy. But as I and many others have queried before, is a shift of a few percent in ‘correct’ calls really worth it when it comes at the cost of so much?
And by that, I don’t mean cost in the same way that Allan does, even though clubs are also increasingly dismayed by the value they are getting after ponying up the dough for VAR to be introduced.
The value of VAR to the ‘Scottish football diet’ is up there with the value that 8 pints and a kebab have to mine of a Saturday evening. But at least I get to enjoy that somewhat before it makes me sick.
You will be hard pushed to find anyone who is currently enjoying what VAR brings to the party. It seems set on pooping it, if anything.
When Aberdeen played out a 3-3 draw against Motherwell last midweek, the spectacle in the stadium should have been a thrilling one for the fan. But even in a game with six goals, VAR tried its best to ruin it for those inside Pittodrie.
There were long delays after each Aberdeen goal, meaning that by the time Duk hit their equaliser from three goals behind, there was an unmistakable reticence to really celebrate it in the home end, just in case.
Then, Bojan Miovski had a goal ruled out after an on-field offside call, which was pored over for a few minutes too down in Glasgow just to ensure that yes, his fringe was the wrong side of the Motherwell defender.
Late on, Motherwell then had a goal ruled out because at the back of the scrum in the penalty area following a corner, there was a push from a visiting player. It didn’t seem to affect what had happened as the ball found its way into the net, perhaps suggesting why referee Kevin Clancy hadn’t blown his whistle, but they had found something, and the goal was no more.
Allan, no doubt, will look at the outcome of those calls and deduce that as they ultimately arrived at the ‘correct’ decision, then it is a perfect example of why VAR is there. But I would argue that inside the stadium, the match was the perfect example of just what its presence takes away from the game.
When talking about the value of VAR, it seems that nobody in a position of power wants to talk about what it is doing to the value of a ticket for the match-going punter.
It has become a crutch for officials and, frankly, a giant pain in the backside for fans. Take the first of Rangers’ two penalties on Sunday at McDiarmid Park. If Matthew McDermott needed prompted that Dujon Sterling being wiped out by Andy Considine merited what turned out to be a second, third, fourth and fifth look at least to determine it was a penalty, then perhaps this refereeing lark isn’t really for him.
Or, perhaps he suspected it was a penalty all along, but also knew it would be easier to go back and award a penalty than it would be to go back and cancel one that had been given in real time, and so hedged his bets? Just a theory.
READ MORE: Willie Collum 'grateful' for SFA support after Celtic vs Rangers VAR drama
The implementation of VAR may have helped referees a little, but without meaning to disparage guys who are doing a hugely difficult job, they aren’t really the most important consideration here.
We are forever harping on about how Scottish football attracts more punters through the gate per capita than any other league in Europe, but when it comes to huge decisions that materially influence our game, where is their input?
Why should we get rid of VAR, then, Crawford? Ask the fans, and you will soon have your answer.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here