So much for ending the debate. This has been yet another weekend of VAR controversy in the Premier League. The decision-making has been inconsistent and the interventions of the video assistant referee continue to baffle and bemuse coaches and supporters alike.
A tipping point appeared to have been reached the previous weekend when a VAR check failed to award a penalty for a foul by Tottenham's Jan Vertonghen on Watford forward Gerard Deulofeu. There was further incredulity when Victor Lindelof's kick on Divock Origi was deemed insufficient to disallow Manchester United's goal against Liverpool.
The focus back then was on the need for the referee on the pitch to review his own decision on the screen given the seemingly high bar required for VAR to take any action.
That was in line with the explanation offered by PGMOL head Mike Riley in mid-September. "We and the clubs believe that we should maintain a high bar in terms of when the VAR intervenes," Riley had said. "There have been six decisions overturned but we believe there should have been ten. We do not want to impact the speed and flow of the game."
Even that explanation was confusing given the incidents cited. One was a handball by Isaac Hayden in the build-up to Fabian Schar's equaliser for Newcastle against Watford at the end of August. That made sense given that Wolves' Willy Boly and Manchester City's Aymeric Laporte had been subject to similar calls in the opening weeks. It seems it was just missed.
But the three other examples offered - penalties for fouls on David Silva, Sebastien Haller and Callum Wilson that were all denied - raised as many questions as answers. What, for example, was so different about the kick to the knee that Cesar Azpilicueta had received inside the Norwich penalty box? Even the explanation featured sins of omission.
If the Deulofeu call since then proved to be a turning point in public opinion, perhaps it was also the catalyst for a change in the thought process of PGMOL. The previously high bar certainly seemed to be far easier to hurdle over at the weekend when a number of decisions were surprisingly overturned given Riley's earlier proclamations.
Had a directive been sent to lower the bar for intervention? PGMOL insist not.
Everton's beleaguered boss Marco Silva needs all the help he can get right now but instead found his team on the receiving end of a penalty decision that was awarded in Brighton's favour after a VAR check. Michael Keane inadvertently trod on the ankle of Aaron Connolly. He caught him. But it did not seem in line with the decision-making that had preceded it.
"I am 100 per cent sure that if they always do the same, we would see 20 penalties each week in the Premier League," said Silva. "It is difficult for the referee to give explanations, firstly because he didn't see. The information he gave was that it was nothing, play on. We have to understand what way the VAR is going. VAR has to be the same for both sides."
While that call came down to how high the bar should be for intervention, the VAR check that resulted in Manchester United being awarded a penalty for a supposed infringement by Ben Godfrey on Daniel James achieved that most unusual of things - two managers agreeing it was the wrong call. Neither Ole Gunnar Solskjaer or Daniel Farke felt it was even a foul.
"Quite obviously, it was a mistake on the first penalty," said Farke. "The referee didn't give a penalty and then two or three minutes for VAR to check. It is only supposed to be over-ruled if there is a clear and obvious mistake. When you watch it back it's quite obvious there is more of a foul against my centre back. It was not one of the best days of VAR."
Solskjaer agreed with that assessment but the Manchester United manager had a legitimate complaint of his own. How had the officials contrived to miss how far Tim Krul was stood off his line when the penalty was taken? The Norwich goalkeeper even repeated the trick when saving a second spot-kick from Anthony Martial soon after.
"Both penalties should have been retaken," said Solskjaer. "He is off his line by a yard, the goalkeeper, for both of them. I didn't think the first one should have been a penalty but they could have come back and given him another chance. It is simple. It is easy. We can see it live that he is off his line. They should have both been retaken."
That was not the end of the weekend's drama. The worst was left until last when a VAR check in the game between Arsenal and Crystal Palace denied the Gunners a late winner at the Emirates Stadium. Sokratis Papastathopoulos thought he had scored but Calum Chambers was ruled to have committed a foul in the build-up. Even now it is not obvious.
"In our last match against Bournemouth we had a more clear penalty on Pepe and they didn't check," said Unai Emery. "Last week in Sheffield we deserved a clear penalty at 0-0, a very important moment, and they didn't check. For me, VAR is positive and we need VAR. But we need to manage it the right way. At the moment for us I think it's not working well."
Emery alludes to this issue of consistency and that is what continues to infuriate. Solskjaer acknowledges one decision but wonders how another is missed. Silva is left frustrated by a "clear penalty" for a foul on Richarlison that is ignored. Over at the Etihad Stadium, another layer of complication was added to the mess in Manchester City's 3-0 win over Aston Villa.
The long delay that followed City's second goal had Villa boss Dean Smith asking questions that could not easily be answered. Kevin De Bruyne had swung in a cross that David Silva appeared to divert into the net while Raheem Sterling was stood in front of goalkeeper Tom Heaton - swaying out of the ball's path to avoid it. The goal was initially given to De Bruyne.
"It is probably a get out of jail for the officials because David Silva touches it," argued Smith in the press conference after the game. "He goes away celebrating that he has touched it. And when he does touch it, Sterling is in an offside position in front of the goalkeeper."
VAR determined that Silva had not touched it so it was a goal. But the goal accreditation panel subsequently awarded it to Silva. Different bodies, you see. No wonder there is confusion. "Don't ask me," said Guardiola. "Ask the referees. Why do us managers have to answer about the decisions all the time? Put them in a media conference and ask them."
So where do we go from here? Ensuring experienced referees are in position at Stockley Park might help. While the decision to send off Southampton's Ryan Bertrand on Friday night was straightforward it seemed appropriate that Mike Dean, the man who has issued more red cards than any other referee, was in the VAR chair. Authority matters.
Contrast that with the Arsenal call on Sunday. "If the referee watched that action on the TV, I am sure he would not decide that it was a foul," said Emery. "In the office with the TV, I don't know who the person is who decides this. Who is the person who checked that?" It was Jarred Gillett, an Australian official who is yet to referee a single Premier League.
Having the on-field referee go to check the screen at the side of pitch himself feels like it has the potential to improve things. They are the ones supposed to be in charge, after all. But even this is not a perfect solution. In theory, it should be easier to make an objective decision in a room far away from the noise and emotion of a baying crowd.
For all the criticism, VAR has reduced the number of incorrect decisions. But the subjective calls are going to continue to spark controversy no matter how many replays are available. Perhaps it is worth remembering that the same officials whose decision-making prompted managers and supporters to call for VAR in the first place are now the ones in charge of it.
As a result, the debate is sure to continue.