HISTORY was made on Tuesday night when Leicester’s Kelechi Iheanacho became the answer to many a pub quiz question in years to come as the first player in English football to be awarded a goal by the new Video Assistant Referee (VAR) system in the FA Cup replay against Fleetwood.

It was such a shame for us headline writers, though, it was not his team-mate Jamie Var-dy who was the beneficiary.

It was Iheanacho, though, who saw a goal initially chalked off for offside before referee Jon Moss was correctly informed by an official watching elsewhere to reverse his decision.

All well and good this new-fangled system then?

Well, so we thought until it turned into something of a Var-ce the following night in the clash between Chelsea and Norwich at Stamford Bridge.

Twice Chelsea players went down in search of a penalty and twice referee Graham Scott adjudged them to have dived and booked Willian and Alvaro Morata. The first looked more of a decent claim but on referral, official Mike Jones watching on TV – not at the stadium but off-site – backed the on-field man in black.

This led to condemnation from an irate Blues boss Antonio Conte, who calmed down once his side had progressed but still had criticism of the VAR input.

In my view we saw the good and bad of it in those two games.

When used to decide matter-of-fact calls like goals and offsides then it will work and can help referees, providing the decision-making can be speeded up.

But for penalty shouts and red cards, it does not matter how many people watch it back, there will always be differing views.

Some will sway to a foul more than others, just like the former players working as pundits for the BBC did on Wednesday.

However, it is hard to find consistency when opinion is called upon – in any walk of life not just sport and football. You just have to recall those post-match conversations in the pub with mates – how many times do you all agree?

And this is where the flaw comes in for VAR.

Referees may have differing levels of view when applying the laws of the game but few will go against another when it is, as they say in cricket, ‘umpire’s call’.

A way to avoid that would be to have a screen pitchside for the referee to run and check himself, rather than be aided through an earpiece.

At least then it is the same person making the decision all over again so judgement should be consistent. However, I can even see more decisions not being referred by the men in the middle once they are surrounded by players and managers making TV shapes with their hands.

I am all for getting help for referees but you cannot stop-start the game for every decision – we would just end up with four-hour long games like the NFL.

It is early days, of course, and VAR will not be the first system to have teething problems. But ultimately I see it being a hindrance more than a help for our officials.