THE Premier League took centre stage again as football fans celebrated the return of the Beautiful Game.

But with it came VAR - the technology being used for the first time in England's top flight. Unsurprisingly, there were a number of talking points from a historic weekend of football.

THE BIGGEST problem with VAR was the length of time it took to review some decisions.

Using technology was effective in ensuring referees got all of the big decisions correct across the Premier League over the weekend.

And many will argue that is precisely what it was brought in to achieve -- no matter how long it takes.

But others will disagree and three key VAR checks took around a minute each to clear up in Manchester City's 5-0 win at West Ham on Saturday.

It also took one minute and 38 seconds to disallow midfielder Leander Dendoncker's goal for Wolves against Leicester yesterday.

We do not want the game to be slowed down, especially as the technology is only meant to be used for "clear" and obvious" errors and factual decisions.

I am all for VAR when officials have made absolute howlers.

But I do not believe the officials made a howler by initially ruling City star Raheem Sterling fractionally onside for Gabriel Jesus' disallowed goal.

If we accept that the technology is 100 per cent accurate, then it is simply a black-and-white case of 'offside' or 'onside'.

But I understand the margin of error using Hawk-Eye is 3.6millimeters in tennis and 2.2mm in cricket.

So there remains a question mark over the technology if the margins are as tight as when Sterling was later adjudged offside.

Screens show the fact that the goal is being checked and to an extent that adds to the excitement.

Everyone is waiting in anticipation and a reversed call can hand teams an instant reprieve.

However, it is also taking too long to check tight offside decisions and that is killing goal celebrations.

Fans know that checks are taking place but they are in the dark over why, with the Premier League deciding not to show replays on screens.

Those supporters should know why decisions are being made because they are paying a lot of money for tickets and are just as important as both the players and coaches.

THE game can be sped up if officials stick to using VAR for what it was brought it do -- review ONLY "clear and obvious" errors. If we accept there is still an element of doubt using Hawk-Eye, then we should be able to speed up VAR use by treating offside calls in the same way LBWs are in cricket.

Decisions stay with the on-field umpire's call for close calls in cricket -- and the Premier League should do the same.

Identifying the margin for Hawk-Eye error on offside decisions would allow more of them to stay with the original on-field call.

And that would hopefully speed up the decision-making process.

Professional Game Match Officials Limited chief Mike Riley described how we have 'raised the bar' by going with less strict directives to International Football Association Board laws on handball (Law 12) and goalkeeper encroachment at penalties (Law 14).

We now need to 'raise the bar' in the same way with offside (Law 11).

And why are TV viewers not being shown the same offside lines as those being looked at in Stockley Park in the VAR hub?

With the money that is in the game now, Manchester United and Liverpool should have been made to put in screens before the start of the season -- they are the only clubs without them.

Clubs are not allowed to show controversial incidents but the stadiums should be showing the VAR footage so all supporters can see exactly what is going on.

And it might add to the excitement even more.