So this is where I could be getting it wrong with VAR but don't they essentially look at everything? It always feels to me like poor commentating or commentators creating a narrative about VAR looking at something whereas in reality all incidents (so fouls, goals, pens etc) will get a check and then where they determine a clear error they tell the ref.
If I am wrong then happy to be corrected but feels very much like a case of shit commentator creates narrative because they are shit at their job
I think you're right, but on semantics.
As I understand it the context behind 'VAR is looking at it' is that play has been paused for a moment (or, at most is still in the phase after the incident and will potentially pause if the ball goes dead).
So, post-goal, VAR would be looking and also the ball is dead by definition - so it's 'looked at'.
What i'd be interested in, is how commentary is dealth with by the VAR - unfortunately transparency is deliberately minimal. But a serious organisation that understood conscious and unconscious bias would not allow the video refs to listen to commentary at all - I think also they would need to be watching a single feed of the game, from the standard angle, too to minimise bias. But as we know, they are influenced by replays appearing - so the broadcasters can help determine which incidents are chosen to be more heavily scrutinised.
They also unfortunately can do the reverse and fail to provide the video ref with a good replay in time to accurately call an incident (remember for example the Super Cup when Abraham clearly dived, but the angle that showed it conclusively wasnt provided to the video ref by the broadcaster until half time of extra time.
