No, it eliminates cheating and violent conduct (or should). The only problem has been with the time delays but, as Americans well know, you get used to it. If you had to make a legitimate criticism it would appear to be that the referee is given the responsibility of being a time keeper too which caused a serious error in the time played in the Scotland game. I would be really interested to see what the actual time of play is for a lot of games though, i.e the exact amount of time the ball is actually in play. I have a feeling that the figure could be as low as 70%. There is no doubt that players deliberately waste time either collecting the ball or taking free kicks, corners, throw ins etc. It would be possible to measure this exact time as they do in American football or basketball?? I found a site which suggests the thought I have had about this and funnily enough, they suggest that the average actual or real time played on the pitch is around 59 minutes 23 seconds. That works out to ~65% so I was close in my estimate. https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/var-premier-league-stop-clock/
Ideally you want a system which accommodates all the prerequisites of football. It has to be exactly the same for both sides, it has to be fair and agreed by all parties. This would eliminate all forms of 'cheating' regarding time wasting AND take any 'personal interpretation' out of the game from any officials. The main difficulty is that this is not workable at roots level and would therefore make the professional game wildly divergent from the amateur one. However, what it is possible to do, at the professional level, is to make sure that an agreed minimum time is achieved where the ball is actually in play on the pitch. That could be exactly 60 minutes.
We know that stoppages can amount to anything up to 12 minutes or more at the end of both halves of the game. However, this is a small sacrifice set against cutting out cheating and obvious errors and to ensure that a fair application of the laws of the game is achieved. Fans do find it frustrating but, what is worse ... waiting for 10 -12 extra minutes or travelling a 700 mile round trip to see your side lose to a goal that should have been disallowed? It is a no brainer.
The England v Cameroon game, whilst it was shrouded in controversy, was a prime example of how VAR can be applied to get the right decisions. Whether the side which suffers an adverse decision like it or not is another matter....... Scotland were to be commended for the mature way that they accepted the decisions, even if it was actually proven that they had suffered an injustice because of the newness of the process. It was one of those wrinkles that needs to be ironed out.
But, as many have agreed, it is the right way forward and cuts out, theoretically at least, human error. Match officials do not have 360º vision so the system gives them a chance to view incidents and obtain the necessary evidence to make the right decision.