Has World Cup found a new football hero?

It’s imperative that the world’s most popular sport is fair and just. Somehow, football’s governing body thought otherwise for so long, with an unspoken reasoning being that the “charm” of controversies – doubtful penalty decisions or questionable red cards – was what kept people glued to the game. The football authorities may still be thinking so, but the introduction of VAR (Video Assistant Referee) at the on-going World Cup means what was once a powerful mindset is now on the ropes.
Critics of the VAR do not have a lot of ammunition. They say the new system is slowing down play and making many celebrations premature. There have been many penalty spot kicks awarded after contentious incidents have passed, meaning players or fans who thought their teams have got away with fouls because the on-field referees did not spot them can be proved wrong. In the VAR system, another set of referees scrutinising video replays in close-up can alert the on-field referees to incidents the latter may not have noticed, or the on-field referees can demand to see video replays themselves before making crucial decisions.
The present World Cup may be seeing most of the familiar big names going through the group stage, but matches between them and “smaller” teams have been closer than generally expected, thanks in no small measure to the use of the VAR. In the past, referees were always reluctant to penalise big teams or star players, but the VAR has provided them with virtual immunity, because the replays are seen along with the rest of the world in seconds after incidents happen.
The only sensible “concern” has to do with the possibility that the VAR can be activated selectively and in favour of certain teams or players. Although the system allows the video-reviewing referees to alert their on-field counterparts about incidents the latter may have “let go”, and empowers the on-field referees to unilaterally see any replays themselves, nothing is mandatory. This means, according to critics, the system can be abused to help certain parties and render injustice to the others.
The question, therefore, is whether football is better off with the VAR or without it. To those frustrated for so long with all the “injustice”, the VAR is a new hero who gives the “lesser teams” a chance. To the defenders of the status quo, the VAR will lead to endless protests during games, with players demanding on-field referees review every replay of alleged contacts, or handball or offside. 
When a team scores, its opponents may point to an incident 15 seconds earlier in the build-up to the goal. And what should the referee do?
All changes or attempts to change things will be resisted. Theories of what the changes can negatively lead to will abound. The bottom line of the VAR is this:
The system means more referees will be involved in a game, and the more, the better. A collective abuse of the system or even collective fraud can happen, but refereeing scandals have already been there. In other words, that the VAR can be abused does not mean the system is not good.
Immediate celebrations have made football charming, but a lot of injustice occurred prior to them. The VAR might not immediately set things right, but more wrongdoers are being punished than ever before, as underlined by the unprecedented number of decisions reversed at this World Cup, and that should be enough for everyone to give the new system a fighting chance.