See you're arguing the wrong thing here.
I agree that there should be referrals.
Thats not whats being argued.
The two things being argued are:
1. Is VAR better than a linesman over offside decisions?
2. Are you willing to wait a couple of minutes for a correct decision, whether that be through a referral or whatever?
nah... I clearly wrote about referrals first so you can make it about what you like but I'll bring it back to the core issue. too much is being abdicated by officials and too many delays to games are happening.
imo on off side you must have intelligence applied or a good side will simply refine offisde trap to point where every attack gets blown up. in ye olden days arsenal under Graham were masters of offside and dull dull dull.
we can't have 2 mins every offside and we can't have a lack of intelligence in the officials meaning we get 20 offsides a half.
I would as I said make officials officiate and fix the error on review system. if you use your reviews up and lose a bad goal once a season tough.
I don't need every goal reviewed. just have a couple reviews and even **** out... give the managers the power. they will put people in stand watching and analysing and let it be so.
in the extreme version of cricket which apparently is much easier to review.
a) no balls have been creeping up due to 2nd umpire laziness... why look any more.. yet 3rd umpire does call this.
b) you would have running on pitch as a tech check not umpire. but where is the sense then to check if the football is really in a spot to take wickets from.
c) you would police sides with tech
d) you would have an over counter up on a board
e) you'd police high balls with tech.
f) you'd use a scanner to examine ball after each over for tampering
none of these things are cos they are perfectly easily done by a human with the common sense their mothers taught them.
football has merely a larger area and more dynamic issue with off side to police. namely interference with play.
this needs intelligence , not just two lines in a screen.