This not you then?
This wasn't also a real post-that followed in response to your complaint:
...And you didn't hit the agree button?
Ummmm... Not it isn't; it's me responding to a post of YOURS that YOU said I needed to read in order to understand where you were coming from.... A post of YOURS that was 90%+ VAR-moan.
Sorry; but even now you're still conflating explanation of the process(s) and knowing the rules with not liking said rules and objecting to the presence of VAR.
Towards the end of the show the ref pundit even said that SHE wasn't particularly at peace with the spirit of one of the rules she'd just explained. (Personally, I thought that was quite refreshing to hear; cos none of the PGMOL-bots in the UK would dare be quite so candid and human in their equivalent role on Sky's 'ref watch' segments).
Whilst this is partly facetious on your part (cos ref's are also called upon to made subjective decisions)...... Sure; no-one said the debate/complaining ends because a rule gets explained.
......But the fact is that both big calls in last night's game were objective given what the rule-book dictates in 2024.