A post I did way back which is now out of date now by one matchday:
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/english-premier-league/story/3988620/premier-league-without-var-man-city-reduce-liverpools-lead
"Liverpool have surged clear at the top, and believe it or not VAR has not been working in Jurgen Klopp's favour with overturns having no effect on their points tally. Liverpool are given a victory at Manchester United (drew 1-1) and a draw at Chelsea (won 2-1), which even themselves out. Maybe the title isn't going to be won in the VAR room."
This is currently wrong, as firstly it doesn't count today's game so we are already in the positive points column again.
Secondly, it doesn't count Man City's lost points, which is also important to us in the title race.
Thirdly, a count like this is never accurate cos VAR can make a decisive judgment in the first 5 minutes (or any point in the game) then how can you judge the rest of the match when the VAR universe has already been changed...
Also, there are cases where VAR makes a decision, but in the old system the ref might've made the same decision as well - but some people tend to count that as a VAR decision anyway.
It's also like that the other way around, for example with City visiting us nearly everyone says VAR benefited us but in reality, VAR just backed up what hte ref would have decided anyway... so VAR had no effect on those decisions.
Ultimately, one can't say VAR has zero effect, it obviously not only effects a match after a VAR decision is made, but it also psychologically effects how players perform from the start of the game... Don't believe the complicated science? Well, it obviously effects how players tackle and cheat on the pitch. So, a Ferguson kick the opposition off the field technique would be less successful with VAR. You say, with VAR we can get away with yellow card, tactical fouls. True. But many of those Scholes and Keane tackles were red card tackles.
