Well, what a fortnight that’s been. And there will be a lot of happy England fans out there.

In my first column, I declared - for the first time ever - I’d give supporting England a go this World Cup. And it’s gone okay so far.

England have had one of their best starts to a World Cup for some time.

No need to thank me. I’m no hero.

But there is one thing which stands out more than England’s successful tournament so far and that’s VAR.

I watch a lot of sport which already uses this technology.

Indeed the England rugby fans among you will remember Mark Cueto being denied a try which would have proved crucial in the 2007 Rugby World Cup final in Paris.

That’s how far this goes back. It is not a new phenomenon by any means. But it’s being used slightly differently in this World Cup.

There is no perfect way to use this technology but I believe it is as close to perfect as it will get in cricket and both codes of rugby.

In all three sports, if there is a decision to be adjudicated upon, and it is contentious, that power is taken out of the hands of the on field official.

They will be involved in the conversation for sure but it is much less likely the man or woman sitting in the back of a lorry outside the stadium feel the pressure of a making a decision like the man or woman in the middle.

Take cricket, umpires can call in help for run outs, stumpings and fair catches.

From the players’ point of view, either the batter or the fielding captain can call a review of LBW.

Still with me? As a result, we’re all quite familiar with “snicko” and “hawk eye” (also big in tennis).

What this means is that almost every decision is correct. If it’s too tight to call even with the technology, we go with the umpire’s call so we’ve still got those all-important talking points. In rugby union and league, it’s used by and large to detect foul play and try grounding.

The foul play will generally be pretty obvious (though not always, see any of the summer tests televised over the last few weeks) but questions over the act of scoring a try can take on a life of its own these days.

Referees are armed with two questions; if they’re pretty sure the attacking team has scored, he or she will ask the TV match official if there is any reason not to award a try. This calls for a clear and obvious reason (we’ve heard that phrase a lot in the last two weeks).

They can also opt for the try/no try question, which essentially means they’ve no idea themselves.

What I’m getting at is, in none of these examples - NFL aside, that’s not a sport, it’s a spectacle - is the on field referee required to go to a little screen at the side of a pitch and watch it themselves under massive pressure from both sets of players and, just as importantly, both sets of fans.

Look at the penalty given to Iran against Portugal. I’d be the first to point out a penalty for a handball in the box but that simply wasn’t a deliberate hand ball. I genuinely believe if the decision on that “penalty” goes to someone working in the VAR studio, it isn’t given.

So, to rather belatedly get to my point, I love VAR but I think it needs to go further.

Take some of the power out of the on-field referee’s hands, just like they’ve done in other sports.

Plus, wasn’t it great to have everyone in the stadium, including the great Ronaldo himself, looking at his elbowing of Morteza Pouraliganji? I love that.

I genuinely believe that will bring more honesty and humility into football. One thing’s for sure, there is no hiding place - except if you’re Tunisian defenders Ferjani Sassi and Yassine Meriah.