Yes but not the way it's implemented at the moment, should go down the Rugby/Cricket route which is how VAR should be used, as in those sports you can hear what the Ref asks the VAR to look for, & hear the verdict from the VAR.
Again..just so those in the crowd can hear doesn't effect the call one way or the other.
I'll go back to the Incident with Chile. The ref didn't call it. He still used VAR and still said no pen. Now loads thought it was a pen. How would hearing, not enough evidence to change the call, is going to help?
There is and will always be debates on the ref got it wrong, even with VAR, .
You WILL be told to accept that even with VAR it won't be perfect. So if it isn't perfect, why implement it?
It is nothing more than a judgement call by------another Ref. Probably a Ref from the senior tour, aka, retired Ref. Not a panel of three current FIFA refs like at the ConFed Cup.
Do you seriously think Mike Riley or Graham Poll or another VAR ref will overturn a call against Man Utd? They will use their get out of jail card--not enough evidence.
But the final piece is, and this is why VAR will get introduced, is to get adverts into the game while the match is going on. This VAR review brought to you by BetFair...lol. Then a short 15-30 second advert spot, which comes back from the advert to a live --oh we now have the review answer ( even though it took 5 seconds).
Those at the match just suffer waiting for a call which has slowed the game down. A team on attack putting pressure on the opposition..VAR call..defending team catch a break, their manager tweaks his side, they refresh themselves with water, and now are fresh again physically and mentally as they not under the kosh.
And you will be told---you will be sold---this is all to do with getting the calls right. Even though it won't be perfect. It's not about the calls in the match but increasing revenues for FA's and clubs.
As one wise old sage once said----Follow the money.