So the era of video technology (Video Assistant Referee) in football is here.

No longer does the man in black stand alone when making decisions. I think it's a desperately sad indictment on our game.

Football is about spontaneity, instinct and blink-of-an-eye moments which are often the difference between success and failure.

When have you ever heard the manager of a team who has been relegated blame a season of poor refereeing decisions for their plight?

Of course we want decisions to be correct and "justice" to play out. But it does not change the fact that the referee is the only man that can call the final decision. And while the sport of football exists, that final decision always has the potential to divide a friendship, a town or even a country.

Let's have a look at the four situations in which VAR can be used.

• Awarding goals

• Penalty decisions

• Straight red cards (not second yellow cards)

• Cases of mistaken identity

Starting with the last one first, cases of mistaken identity very rarely happen, so that will be of little consequence.

I can certainly see some merit in helping to award straight red cards, but how is it possible to ever really gauge a player's intent? So fast and strong are the defenders, so quick and agile are the strikers, that a fractionally mistimed tackle can look like an attempted decapitation.

But unless the decapitator is heard shouting "I'm going to decapitate you" or the decapitee is heard imploring "don't decapitate me like you said you were going to", how on earth is the referee able to make an informed judgement on that - with or without VAR?

Awarding goals is a no-brainer - if the ball is over the line, have a quick check via VAR to make sure.

Regarding penalty decisions, will they be ironed out through VAR? Take the most controversial example in recent months from the Arsenal v WBA game, in which Mike Dean awarded a penalty which later prompted some expensive invective from boss Arsene Wenger.

Dean, rightly or wrongly, clearly must have felt it was a deliberate hand ball by the Calum Chambers. He had the perfect view. VAR could have attempted intervention were it in place for that game, but Dean would have doubtless stuck to his guns. Simply because it's a question of interpretation. That is the key word here, interpretation.

Even the clearest rules - in any scenario, sporting or otherwise - are open to interpretation. While that may be hugely frustrating for Mssrs Wenger, Mourinho et al, it is the very reason that we watch the next game, next week.

Talking points, differing opinions, perceived injustices - these are the things that make football devastatingly tense.

VAR at a glance (so to speak)

What happens?

A designated video assistant referee can review footage and relay information to the on-pitch referee. The VAR can ask the referee to review their decision via a pitch-side monitor.

When does it become involved in the game?

Only when an obvious error has occurred and the VAR can tell the referee. The on-pitch referee is not allowed to stop the game to ask the video referee for assistance.

Can VAR stop play?

No. It usually has to wait until there is a break in play before making a decision. If the game has restarted, nothing can be done. However, if violent conduct takes place during a stoppage, officials are given two phases of play to stop the game.

Who is the final decision with?

The final decision is with the on-pitch referee. They do not have to change their original decision at all. However, if there is enough evidence to suggest that the original decision was wrong, then the referee is free to over-rule that.