It may be the mounting sense of drama playing tricks on the mind, but VAR decisions seem to be getting worse as the stakes get higher this season.
At the very least, use of the system has suffered an abject few weeks in the Premier League.
Three high-profile moments stand out for all the wrong reasons.
First came the Rodri handball that denied Everton a late penalty against Manchester City last month.
Pep Guardiola’s only defence after the 1-0 win was to claim an offside in the build-up. That proved to be erroneous. Despite initial excuses peddled on behalf of the PGMOL, officials soon sheepishly admitted their mistake.
A personal apology was arranged for both Frank Lampard and Bill Kenwright. They would have desperately preferred a chance to plunder a point from the spot instead.
On Saturday, Luis Diaz gave Liverpool the lead against Brighton with a brave header that saw him immediately clattered by stopper Robert Sanchez.
EVERTON: Frank Lampard could face tough Everton question we all now struggle to answer
LIVERPOOL: Mohamed Salah has just said exactly what Liverpool need to hear right now
It is rare to witness pundits and fans of all clubs almost united, but the inexplicable call not to take further action or simply invite the referee over to a monitor for another assessment of the incident managed that feat.
Peter Walton: "If that was two outfield players, I'm sure this would be looked at for serious foul play". Glenn Hoddle: "A challenge like that anywhere else on the pitch gets punished with a red card". Rio Ferdinand: "It's like WWE. 100% red." Peter Crouch: "We talk about serious foul play and eradicating that. If you want to see serious foul play, that’s it. He could have been seriously, seriously injured there."
You get the picture.
Perhaps those in charge felt the goal was enough punishment for Brighton. If that was an actual rule, it would be understandable.
Had Diaz’s effort rolled narrowly wide, it is difficult to envisage anything other than a red card for Sanchez. Instead the opening strike seemingly spared the keeper by some strained concept of double jeopardy.
It is one thing to apply that generous logic over a penalty decision for a clumsy but innocuous foul in the box. But this was a reckless, dangerous challenge. Even the slow-motion replay made you wince at the speed of Sanchez’s motion and force of his contact.
And yesterday, more controversy. Newcastle United's penalty appeals were waived away after Trevoh Chalobah grabbed and grappled Jacob Murphy as he surged into the box.
That came early in the second half before Kai Havertz channeled Dennis Bergkamp to win it for Chelsea with a sublime touch and strike at the death.
The non-spotkick was naturally the focus of Eddie Howe's post-match verdict, as he bemoaned: "Jacob’s had his shirt ripped off his back near enough, goes down in the box, a clear penalty. Even if the referee doesn’t give it on the pitch, I can kind of understand that, but then VAR doesn’t give it and they should at least make the referee review his own decision".
It is clear and obvious there is a problem. So what is the solution?
A first step should be revealing what is said between the VAR team at Stockley Park and referees on the pitch in significant moments. If not live, then certainly soon after the action.
*Sign up for our FREE daily Everton or Liverpool newsletter
This is not to enable more finger-pointing and an enhanced sense of villainy towards individual officials.
Broadcasting exchanges would show some semblance of the fast-paced environment in which calls are made. It may even elicit an extra element of sympathy for those making them.
Crucially though, it would either undermine or validate critics who say there is an unwillingness for colleagues to overturn rulings from those they know well.
These should not be conversations between friends, but serious discussions across a split workplace. Having the powerful scrutiny of transparency may help in that regard.
It could humanise and protect rather than adding additional pressure, cutting off any conspiracy theories from aggrieved fanbases at the source.
As Chris Sutton recently said: "These are the best around, the referees we have in the Premier League at the moment. They have trained [for] years to get to this level.
"If they were mic'd up and explained why they made the call then there would be a far better understanding. It will be a good thing and transform the game."
Mike Riley has previously argued against referees wearing microphones.
Back in 2018, the PGMOL chief said: "I'm not too keen, and the reason being is there are many conversations on the football field that are actually really constructive in terms of helping the players engage with referees and vice versa. Were you to make those conversations public, it might impact that relationship on the pitch."
That's a fair perspective. But really it is only exchanges during VAR involvement that would need to be picked up, to ensure the supposed safety net for correct decision-making is truly secure.
The debate around introducing clinical technology into the emotional arena of a game like football will always have polarised views, each with merit.
Supporters and players should ideally be able to celebrate goals without undue fear of delay and excessive investigation. Equally, many invested in the sport have an urge to demand the best possible decisions are being made.
Ultimately it is still early days for VAR.
But it seems evident football's governing bodies are keen for it to stay.
Experimenting with the welcome refinement of more openness might be a wise next move.
If nothing else, it would allow officials to speak for themselves, rather than have words put in their mouth by others each and every weekend.
