This Just isn't Football

We saw this weekend with Stones and their keeper, players faking injury to waste time and stop momentum, only for the second they leave the pitch waving madly to the ref to come back on. Everybody including the ref knows they are play acting.

If they were made to wait and be a man short, this would stop this embarrassing rubbish. Also, refs can add on exactly the right amount of wasted time back on. Not a token 30 seconds after a player has wasted 2 minutes rolling around in fake agony.

The ruling of the handball against Manchester City was simply criminal.

Another alternative that should be easily available to the usually insatiable data hawks of modern football, should be the tracking of how many decisions, reviews and overturns are made in favor or specific teams by specific referees.

It would be reasonable to suggest that appropriate use of data insights in an annual review of referee performance might be a good step to ensuring a more balanced, if not equitable, application of laws.

As I mentioned on Saturday. The officiating of the game vs Man City is a case study in how to shade a game in favor of a team by a referee.

This is a kind of insidious corruption and bias that needs to be rooted out of what has become a sordidly corrupt league.

That link has us at a deficit of 2 points but was compiled before the City game and doesn't include the Oriel Romeu incident at Southampton, presumably because we lost by two clear goals.

VAR is a tool supposed to help. Like any tool, it can help or do the opposite. Too often it does the latter, and in our case is being used to continue a process of consistent bias against us, which have cost us dearly in points and made the struggle to succeed an unfair one.

Succeeding is hard enough without biased and corrupt match officials making it even harder.

Therefore, no change on the horizon, except maybe a dot on an 'eye' or a cross on the odd 'tee'.

I went to bed last night when Boro v Spurs went to extra time, and put on Netflix instead, which is something I would have thought was unthinkable not so long ago.

It was probably the best game I'd watched for a long time, but I'm going the match on Thursday, and I just can't saturate myself with the beautiful game anymore, especially because of the way VAR, and many unscrupulous officials have taken the game.

I won't go on too much about VAR. I am a supporter of it's correct implementation.

The problem remains the ridiculous rules and the incompetent interpretation of them by officials.

The technology is actually supposed to help them make the right decision.

All we have done is transfer the problem. In my line of work we talk about accepting risk, tolerating risk or transferring risk. With VAR, we have transferred the problem.

The problem being the rules and the incompetent officials who make judgement on them.

Keep it simple. For me, I liked the "daylight" offside rule. That's clear and obvious to coin a modern phrase. Handball, if the arm is out it's handball. Unless it's been smashed at a player from close range. But the technology can clear that up.

Still angry.

If we need any evidence, it's the fact they won another trophy on Sunday, as pointed out in this very good article.

What would be the consequences of the offside rule being abolished altogether?

Teams would have to modify their defensive tactics to deal with goal-hangers, controversy would be eliminated, and there'd be no more need to explain an arcane rule to those who pretend to be interested in the game...

I'd like to hear your opinions: what would be the negatives?

Well, how wrong can you get? The so-called Big 6 clubs (well maybe not Spurs because I don't consider them one of the so-called Big 6 clubs) are still getting dodgy decisions in their favour. Quite simply, VAR is neither use nor bloody ornament in this country.

For anyone who watches football in other countries who use VAR, is there as much favourtism towards their so-called top clubs as there is here? The whole VAR system in this country stinks!!

At the outset of VAR, my suspicion was that it was only brought in to facilitate results in favour of the big teams. A kind of safety net when all else fails.

Incidents like the clear failure to award Everton a penalty only serve to back up my view.

To give you a specific. How enjoyable it was to watch Middlesbrough last night and knowing that VAR couldn't intervene.

As someone has previously said, if your finger is offside, why is that offside? You can't score with your hand, let alone your finger. The daylight rule gave advantage to the attacker, but we didn't seem to stick with that for too long unfortunately.

I don't mind the offside rule, just make it sensible and realistic.

It's similar to the pass-back rule. I didn't mind that being implemented as it stopped the endless passing back to the keeper to have him pick it up and stop play. At least now, if it goes back to the keeper, he has to play football.

Although our keeper mainly plays like a Rugby Union player punting for territorial advantage and giving the opposition a line-out (throw-in)!!!

Similarly the handball incident illustrates the same point. It is clear looking at the position of the player's left hand and right foot the two images are not at the same moment. The right-hand image (to me) shows the moment the ball strikes the arm – nailed on penalty all day. In the left-hand image I would say that the ball is travelling across the player's body at an angle and, if one was to freeze frame one frame earlier, the ball would possibly be in line with the Puma badge, making it look like the chest.

Rodri was definitely leaning into the ball to try and "chest" it to safety but got the timing wrong so the instinct then is to move his arm to the ball. If these two images were used by the VAR monkey to make his decision, then that is plainly wrong. It shouldn't be hard in this case to pinpoint the moment the ball changed direction.

Anyway, the world and his cousin now knows it should have been a penalty but the point I make again is the precise freeze-frame moment.

I concur also with Andy @1 about having an obligatory recovery and assessment period following an "injury" requiring on field treatment, and have said so before on these pages. My only difference would be the obligatory off-field time which I had mooted at 2, maybe 3 minutes. I guess in the case of a goalkeeper, that would not work but a definitive amount of wasted time should be added to the clock.

The suggestion of wider lines for offside has condiderable merit as it would to all intents and purposes show daylight between attacker and defender thus confirming the offside (or not). The whole business is a shambles right now and we are stuck with it, but surely it is not beyond the wit of someone competent to address the obvious issues.

Geoff Trenner...?????

Tinkering officials have throughout many years attempted to bring fairness into the game, only to bring more controversy.

Back in the day, slow-motion replays raised and answered questions regarding incidents, appealing to fans and pundits alike. Yet, today, with a high level of sophisticated technology, controversy still haunts the game.

I thought the idea of the technology was to rule out human error but, given recent events, obviously not. Which leaves a distasteful thought of corruption amongst some officials. An issue that the authorities need to address. So, the match officials who monitor a game, may themselves be subjected to being monitored. What a carry on!

I'm not a huge rugby fan but I'm pretty sure they use this system for when a player requires treatment or the game is going to be delayed for more than a few seconds. Instead, football has somehow managed to create a system that can punish the team whose player has been fouled.

We often end up with a situation where the fouled player is treated on the pitch and made ready to continue. Instead, said player is then made to leave the pitch to be waved on by the referee which often wastes even more time.

The time lost or wasted during a game is very rarely made up with injury time at the end of either half.

The same applies to substitutions where all managers know that the making of a substitution will take time out of the game.

In this day and age where sport events can be won and lost by 0.001 seconds, it baffles me that elite football still hasn't managed to use a simple solution to fix the problem.

A prime example of how bad it can be was evident during our 3-0 loss to Aston Villa. The last 15 minutes involved about 3 minutes of actual football and the rest was stoppages and time-wasting, all which the ref allowed to happen. Then, when the board went up, it was deemed only a few minutes of injury time was required because of the scoreline.

#1 Andy, you are right about that. Five minutes sounds a bit harsh if someone has genuinely been clattered; but play acting has been ruining this sport for many years now, at home and abroad.

It doesn't even matter if it is very rarely not accurate (not that we would ever be able to know for sure). VAR becomes the truth, as in tennis. It's the same there, can we really be sure if a strand of fluff on the ball hasn't just caught the outer edge of the line? No, but it doesn't matter, the players accept that what VAR shows in close up is 'the reality'.

It is more controversial when linear measurement is not possible, specifically fouls and handballs. This introduces more subjectivity.

I can understand why the ref on Saturday did not give a penalty. One might argue did the ball actually touch below the elbow or was it really an 'unnatural' movement and too far from the ball? But I am pretty sure it was a penalty and certainly I don't think VAR would have overturned it.

I suspect part of the problem is that the original intention of VAR was to correct obvious and glaring errors but I said at the time it was simply unavoidable in it being involved in ever finer margin calls. That means it has improved refereeing decisions, even if some of these subjective fine margin decisions might make us think otherwise.

Someone referred to a site that monitors 'lost points' from incorrect VAR calls. I think that might be useful in making sure there is accountability and ensuring that no teams are seen as gaining (or losing) over a season.

Transparency might help, as might following rugby and broadcasting the discussion between the ref and VAR, so we can see how they work as a team.

We import the best players in the world, why can't we import the best foreign referees?

Regarding VAR, the “clear and obvious error” criterion seems to have been forgotten, I don't know why.

Also forgotten, or perhaps never considered, is observer error. There is always a degree of inaccuracy with freeze-frames and computer-generated lines on the pitch, but referees seem to believe their screens are accurate to the millimetre and the micro-second, which of course they aren't.

I firmly believe that, as in Rugby League, the independant time keeper will blow his or her hooter, at half-time and full-time, so that any time added on is precise and the refereee does not have any opportunity to extend play, by favour or otherwise, to give an advantage to one side over another.

To my mind, that would be a major step forward and easy to implement.

Heads need to roll.

I believe that you will be aware of my dislike of the VAR system. There have been many changes to the offside law in recent times, but not changes to improve the situation, in my opinion.

There was a time when a player standing in a position 40 yards away from the action would be deemed to be offside and interfering with play; I would prefer that to the current state of affairs.

I am on record as saying, "Football is a game played by humans, officiated by humans, and watched by humans" – the introduction of VAR has, on occasion, taken away the ecstasy of goal.

I know that I may be taking things to the extreme when I say that a defender and an attacker can be standing absolutely level, but the attacker wearing Size 10 boots, as opposed to the defender's Size 8 boots, is ruled off-side.

The only improvements that I can see are the goal-line technology, which is instant, and the 'shaving cream' that prevents encroachments at free-kicks, which appears to be a psychological issue.

I would prefer my disappointments to be caused by the referee on the pitch, and not by someone 200 miles away. I know that there will be some who regard me as a dinosaur, but having witnessed the football of yesteryear, I plead guilty.

Also, spot-on, Christopher @2, yes let's use all the data available to analyse refs' and VAR officials' decisions against certain teams.

If all these things even themselves out and there is no conscious or unconscious bias involved, they (the refs) should have nothing to fear with the results of the data.

The fact we still have officials from Merseyside and Manchester officiating on matches of this importance is ridiculous. Again, let's dig deeper and see if there is potential favouritism. There has been lots of talk about corruption and, although it seems over the top and almost paranoid, I wouldn't quickly discount it. In a world of spread betting on many platforms, why is it so unlikely?

In an industry with so much to gain and lose? Why is it so unlikely that bribes aren't being made? This has happened in Italian top-flight football, Cricket and undoubtedly Boxing as well as Baseball (many years ago, admittedly).

Then there is the question of what I would call corruption by fear – this definitely exists and was admitted recently by an ex-referee (Halsey?) where referees are either intimidated or in awe of certain teams; again, this is a disgrace.

I think it was Reds fan Clattenburg who referred to Gérrard as Stevie or worse Stevie G in an article I read. That speaks volumes to me.

Also, Kim @15 makes great points, especially the manipulation and almost con trick of the different photos; however, I will say, as long as that VAR official had that 1 photo of it striking his arm, it didn't matter about the journey of the ball before or after.

This is the most unpalatable aspect of this most recent farce... he is blind or he is on the take – there is no in-between on this occasion – and obviously that means he should be suspended with an opportunity to explain himself.

I am not altogether convinced it is any better in other countries or in European competitions. Given a choice in the matter I would scrap it right now. There are however too many vested interests in retaining it, not least in the extra match fees for the two officials sitting in front of a screen.

One of the many issues is the way pitch officials have allowed themselves to be cowed by the technology. Most seem frightened to make a decision, seemingly reliant on a VAR intervention to bale them out.

Assistant referees might as well not be there, especially in relation to offside. It can only be a matter of time before a player incurs a serious injury after the continuation of play despite an obvious offside infringement.

If the system must be retained, stricter limitations should be placed on its usage, in the main matters of fact such as whether or not a ball was out of play in the build-up to the scoring of a goal. Matters of judgement should be limited to specific areas, such as foul play inside or outside the penalty area or causing injury to an opponent.

Finally, the job of monitoring incidents on a screen in the confines of a studio and communicating with the pitch officials should be a specialist role. The skills are very different to those required on a pitch.

It would also help if the VAR person was linked to the same referee throughout the season so that they can operate as a partnership. The constant switching around between roles cannot be helpful in building understanding between officials.

You can hear all of this in Cricket and Rugby, so there is absolutely no reason it shouldn't be in football.

The three major areas of contention are fouls, handballs and offsides. You can't do much about the first two – there always has been and always will be subjective opinions about what is a foul and what is a handball and I have nothing to add here about that difficulty. You cannot have football when any sort of tackle is allowed or any sort of handball is allowed.

However, you can have football without offside. I say get rid of the law entirely. It would eliminate maybe 40% of the controversy at a stroke and we could all concentrate on figuring out what is a foul and what is a handball.

Yes, it would change the game... maybe for the better, maybe for the worse. If there are goal-hangers, the coaches and players would have to figure out how to deal with them. With no offside, it seems to me likely there would be more goals and more space on the pitch for players to play in but I could be wrong. Let's find out!

There have been a lot of arguments of people focusing on applying the "letter of the law", instead of the "spirit of the law", or that in focusing on the details, people have missed the "forest for the trees".

While all these are plausible, it still does not beg the question how experienced referees have become significantly more incompetent, when the technology is applied.

The very case in point here is, why didn't VAR ask the ref to take another look? And why the ref decided not to just hop over to the screen, or request a look, even when VAR didn't recommend it?

I can't help but feel that the referees want VAR to fail, so that the referees retain control over all their decisions. The fact that England is slower than many countries in implementing VAR shows that the referees feel that they know better.

So, perhaps, what better way than to sabotage the implementation, so that they can, through popular consensus (exasperation from the fans and the pundits etc), reduce their use of VAR?

Because, other than that, I cannot fathom why the referees' association would be so 'blind' to these clear and obvious cases.

It was the same with penalties or when no penalties were given. Penalties were given when there were no fouls or penalties not given when there were clearly fouls in the penalty areas.

But, in the days of VAR, there is no excuse why the penalty was not given against Man City.

Anyone have any idea if we could sue the Premier League or PGMOL officials if we are relegated by a point? Similar to what Boro are doing with Derby.

Some time ago when I listened to the Alan Jackson 'Football, Football, Show' on Radio Merseyside, I suggested that the off-side law be scrapped, and countered the claim that dispensing the off-side law would lead to goal hangers, by saying it would be up to teams to combat the situation by bringing defenders back to mark them.

This I believe would result in the expansion of the pitch, enabling the more gifted players to be more effective. To make it plainer, if there were goal hangers, it would be up to the defending team to ensure that they were marked.

Great article, Lyndon. I am one of those who would like offside dispensed with entirely. I don't care if there are more breakaways. Goals make a game and I am sure there would be more. There would be far less arguments and teams would have to adjust their style of play. Opening up the pitch would be great for football.

Of course none of this would change the "Disgraceful Decision" in the Man City game other than to realise that those two incompetent, inane, foolish, refereeing idiots also decide offside. There really are far too many poor Refs in British football. Far too many!!!

My second thought was: Why don't they give it a trial run by creating a cup competition to see how it goes!

With VAR, there is now no such thing as 'level' so there are more goals being ruled out due to a toe or an arm being forward. The Lukaku “goal” on Sunday was such an example. The level rule should be reintroduced, concentrated on the players' torsos.

It was a very technical game but in the higher echelons it often came down to being able to knock the ball against a defenders foot inside the penalty area. That was a foul and resulted in a corner taken from halfway between the goal and the edge of the pitch. The attackers stood on the edge of the penalty area - 16 yards out and the defenders on the line until the corner was hit. Cue many a bruise if you did not have shin guards, facemasks, and often a box. With rolling substitutions, England had one player who only came on for the penalty corners as he could hit the ball harder than most.

It got boring. So they abolished the offside rule. I had stopped playing by then but I think it maybe took a couple of years before tactics were adjusted.

Ruben, his co-defender, however, threw his right arm up in disgust as soon as it happened.

The other question I have got for Tierney is “If you couldn't see what happened because another player was blocking your view, why didn't you take it upon yourself to go over to the screen and have a look?”

The pair of them ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Who knows if the links to Stockley Park, some times glitch or lock up? Then the monitor really is winging it.

Nothing with the EPL, and rotten to the core piss poor standards in referees and their translation of the rules of the game, seems to be honest to consider changes, and leaves the supporters real time experience now almost a remnant of the past.

Surely common sense must prevail, and new ways of using the replay technology reviews, in preseason trials and to cap once and for all in the FAC, that, until all clubs hàve this capability, then it's not used.

Surely there's enough money in the FA, to support the rest of the league and raise the standards of the English game.

Too much time and money, but really the FA, couldn't be arsed, considering such an idea.

The madness and controversy looks like it's here to stay.

One day perhaps, it will change for the better.

I agree with the players faining injury, once they leave the field, there should be a minimum minute, before they can return.

I appreciate and understand your opposition to getting rid of offside. Unfortunately, I think your idea would make things even more complicated.

As one poster suggested, I don't see why there couldn't be practice games played without offside, with spectators in attendance. This way, there could be at least some way of trying to see just how things might work to improve the game.

Quite honestly there are so many different points that indicate that football fans are all in a state of uncertainty. Retaining the offside rule may still turn out the best, but surely the governing bodies have to give other ideas a chance.

After all they were quite capable of deciding that two completely incompetent imbeciles robbed Everton of at least one point. Unfortunately, that decision did not change anything.

In effect we have a machine and a stranger deciding the outcome of a match.

Win it or lose, it's just not right. It's not a video game after all.

We learned to accept human error from refs over the years but this downright unacceptable and scrapping it is the answer.

Give the game back to the three match officials on the pitch.

The Rodri handball has simply exposed an official who apparently has no ‘feel' for what a player has to do to use his shoulder on the ball rather than his bicep when the ball is at shoulder height. You lean towards the ball and cock your shoulder forward to use the shoulder; you raise your arm so that it is horizontal and sweep the elbow towards the ball when you are playing it with your arm (and the t-shirt zone shouldn't be a factor).

The original rule said hand or any part of the arm. The deltoid/lateral shoulder is part of the upper arm; it moves with it. If the ball and hand/arm came in contact, it was a simple matter of whether a deliberate move was made or whether the ball struck the hand/arm: "Ball to hand".

No crap about whether advantage gained by movement, whether involved in a goal or not, as tonight, types/degrees of handball? tee-shirt zone etc. Just a decision on whether the player moved his arm into the path of the ball or not. Move = attempt to gain advantage, not moved = no attempt.

No using of shoulder. Shoulder = handball. Chest = not handball.

So fifty-fifty decisions are never challenged forty-sixty rarely and thirty-seventy only occasionally. It has to be a downright clanger for the decision to be overturned and then, as last week against City, it doesn't always happen.

Referees are the last people who should be running this as they have too subjective an interest to provide real objectivity.