A statistic has come to light about the new Video Assistant Referee system which could suggest the technology is 'needless'.
As tweeted out by Sky Sports' Bryan Swanson, VAR has been 98.9% accurate over the 804 competitive matches it has been used in thus far, which according to football lawmakers IFAB is 'positive and encouraging', as quoted by BBC Sport.
But they do add that 100% accuracy will always be unattainable due to the element of 'human perception' and 'subjectivity in decision-making' - begging the question in the eyes of many; what might be the need for the system?
A large proportion of fans feel that there is too much flexibility within the laws of the game and the proposed introduction of VAR takes away from the realism. That 'human perception' is what makes football the most popular and exciting sport in the world.
People in the 'anti-VAR' camp argue that if 100% accuracy can never be achieved, then the human perception that has to be relied upon should just be with the main referee. It has been branded a source for confusion, and a disruption to the flow of the game.
Findings from IFAB, as compiled by the BBC, show that the median wait time for a review is only 60 seconds though, with the initial check time of the VAR system being 20 seconds.
(You may also be interested in FanVoice: Supporters are United in Landslide Decision Over the Use of VAR Technology in the EPL).
There are people who are all for the technology, insisting that its assistance in correcting 'clear and obvious' errors is revolutionary, and a necessary means of achieving the right judgement or as close to the correct judgement as possible.