Thoughts after the Group Phase of the World Cup

Davison Sanchez allegedly offside - but only because the computer imagines him wearing ludicrously outsized boots?!

I'll try to confine myself to just a few brief notes here on topics of interest that have come up during the first two-and-a-bit weeks of the World Cup (um, OK, not that brief; I'm not good at 'brief'...). I'm planning to write a little more on considerations for the Fantasy game going into the knockout stages later this afternoon.

The ball - This has caused quite extensive discussion (well, in a World Cup, it almost always does!). Former England goalkeeper, now BBC TV pundit, Joe Hart has been rushing to the defence of some of the goalkeepers who've let in shots that they probably shouldn't have, suggesting that the speed/trajectory of the ball is strangely difficult to read. That sounds to me rather like classic Goalkeepers' Union excuse-making, since the examples in question all seemed to involve keepers reading the flight of the ball just fine and getting at least one hand to it, but.... not a 'good hand'! UK newspaper The Guardian had a piece on this a few days ago. Some scientists have suggested that there is a 'drag crisis' associated with this ball, which seems to mean that the airflow around it rapidly becomes more chaotic at a certain threshold speed; but this is actually a good thing - at least for the kicker - since it appears to reduce aerodynamic drag behind the ball, and thus speed it up, or rather reduce the rate at which it decelerates. Balls hit very hard, it seems, may fly a bit faster and straighter than balls hit only very slightly less hard, and this may be bamboozling keepers who are as yet unfamiliar with the characteristics of Adidas's new 'Trionda' ball. We have certainly been treated to a feast of long-range pingers in this tournament so far - and nobody except goalkeepers is complaining about that! 

However, we've also seen a lot of efforts from distance flying high, and it has seemed to me that this ball seems to gain elevation more than you'd expect. I suppose it might just be an optical illusion caused by the alleged slower deceleration characteristics just mentioned above; if the ball doesn't slow down as quickly, it's not going to dip as quickly - and that may fool our brains into thinking the trajectory is actually curving upwards slightly. But I really think it is sometimes lifting more than we'd expect; and I wonder if these odd aerodynamic effects around the ball are somehow producing a little bit of extra lift at certain critical speeds (perhaps with the help of a certain type of spin on the ball??). 

The behaviour of the ball is not so erratic as to cause any major problems, I don't think; so, we should all be fairly happy with it. But I do also wonder if the constant rush towards novelty - sometimes, perhaps, rather than genuine worthwhile innovation - and a shortage of testing-time may lead manufacturers to produce some non-ideal equipment for tournaments like these.

The draw - It is strange, and obviously undesirable, that the bottom quarter of the draw contains none of the tournament favourites except Argentina. (while the top half is stacked with France, Spain, Germany, Morocco, Holland, Portugal, Belgium and the USA!!), There was something very much amiss in the tournament design here. And it does indeed appear that FIFA are rather too nakedly trying to engineer another win - or at least another Final or Semi-Final appearance - for Leo Messi. I think the truth is a little different - equally shameful, though probably not quite such catnip to the conspiracy theorists. I don't think FIFA are particularly concerned for Messi/Argentina to win another World Cup per se; I just think they want to maximise their revenues across the tournament as a whole. And Messi is a proven draw, he's got a reliable record of selling out US stadiums in the MLS (and last summer's Club World Cup!) on his own. So, there's no need to pair Messi with another top attraction to ensure good ticket sales. The likely Argentina v Australia 'Round of 16' tie will probably fill more seats than Spain v Portugal in the other half of the draw.

The Cabo Verde fairytale - I mentioned yesterday that it seemed rather cruel for the plucky little island nation to be pitched against Messi's Argentina in the first knockout round. But, given how relatively weak the rest of that half of the draw looks, if they do somehow get past that obstacle - the possibility of them going all the way to the Final will suddenly start to seem not so far-fetched. They have looked the second-best African team so far (after the superb Morocco), and possibly the best defensive team; but they also showed in their 2-2 draw against Uruguay that they can offer some attacking threat. The bookies are currently offering something like 15/1 against Cabo Verde progressing to the 'Round of 16',... 400-500/1 against them reaching the Final, and up to 1,500/1 against them winning the tournament. Those are probably the best value bets in the tournament. Well, since, in the unlikely event that they can get past Argentina, Australia or Egypt in the next round shouldn't be too much of a problem for them, I think it would be well worth having a little punt on them to reach the quarter-finals (25-40/1) and/or the semi-finals (80-100/1). Take those odds now; they will tumble if they can pull off an upset against Argentina.

The tiresome 'GOAT' debate - Yes, that's raging again (does it ever stop?) in social media comment threads. The great Italian former player Antonio Cassano added more fuel to this fire the other day when he averred that Cristiano Ronaldo was 'not in the conversation'. But that seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable and indeed incontestable statement. Because Beckenbauer and Cruyff and Zidane et al aren't 'in that conversation' either. If you're talking about a player whose technical abilities and lasting impact on the game are head-and-shoulders above every other player in history (so far), then.... even the greatest of the greats are not quite good enough. There are only three candidates: Pelé, Maradona, and Messi. For me, Maradona, whatever his undoubted skills, is disqualified by having been such a cheat and a thug and a nutjob - and by having almost always played the game with a scowl of seething rage on his face. And Messi - I feel we should probably wait until after his retirement to start fully appraising his achievement in a wider historical context. For me, the 'GOAT' is a silly concept: you can't meaningfully compare with each other players from different eras, or players in different positions, or players who might have had radically different styles even in the same position. But if you absolutely insist on nominating one player as standing above all others in history - it's always got to be Pelé, if only because he was the first: he created the very idea of a 'superstar player': none of the subsequent holders of that mantle would have been viewed in the same way if Pelé hadn't come before them; and even today, half a century after his retirement, every great player still has to bear comparison with Pelé - and is almost always found wanting. All the great players since Pelé have been trying to emulate him, and few have come anywhere close; I still don't think anyone has yet truly matched or surpassed him - although at least with Messi, there is a case to be made. With Cristiano there is not, not even remotely.

The Haaland outrage - The main point of complaint for World Cup Fantasy managers in these last few days has been the shocking decision of Norway head coach Ståle Solbakken to omit Haaland entirely from the 3rd Round game against France. In fact, he rested almost all of his usual starters (although their outstanding right-back, Julian Ryerson, had injured a hamstring in the previous game), presumably giving way to sentiment, thinking it would be kind to try to give as many of his squad as possible a taste of World Cup football. His proffered explanation that he wanted to 'rest' players ahead of the 'Round of 32' was less convincing; two not terribly hectic games spaced over nearly two weeks is not going to tire or stress anyone; and there's a four-day gap until they would play again. Spain didn't rest or protect the recently injured Oyarzabal or Yamal (admittedly, they did rotate much of the rest of their usual starting lineup; although their squad is strong enough that they can do this without really compromising team performance!), Messi at least got half an hour or so off the bench (and another scoring contribution), likewise Pulisic for the USA (although he didn't manage to score, despite threatening to do so multiple times), while Germany and France, to their credit, put out full-strengh sides, despite having already assured themselves of first-place qualification. Zlatan Ibrahimovic on US television castigated Solbakken's decision, accusing him of a lack of ambition or self-belief. I tend to think that Zlatan is a bit of a knob most of the time (like a more stylish Roy Keane...), but on this I'm inclined to agree with him: I don't think it's good for the psychology of the team to basically admit that you feel you have no hope of beating France (you'd have to beat them, or someone better than them, to get to the last rounds of the tournament) and that you don't care who you face in the next round,... and thus - impliedly, I think - that you don't fancy your chances of getting beyond the 'Round of 16', that winning just one knockout tie is the summit of your ambitions. [But then, perhaps I'm just bitter because I'd hung on to Haaland in my squad, expecting that he'd at least get some minutes off the bench, and might pick up another goal even from a short outing.]

This may be a harsh wake-up call for people who'd been fancying Norway as a possible 'dark horse' to go deep into he tournament, and possibly even win it - just because of Haaland's great form. I don't think the City striker can do it for them on his own. Odegaard still seems to be misfiring rather, after his injury-ravaged season at Arsenal; and their second-best player, Ryerson, now looks set to miss next week's game. I'm not sure I even fancy their chances against the Ivory Coast; they'll surely get massacred by Brazil.

A feast of football - Although many of us suffered with the omission of Haaland, the short minutes for Messi, and the surprise defeat for Germany, we were blessed, really, that rotations were so few in this Round, even among the handful of teams whose first-place qualification was already secured, and that the Round was so surprisingly high-scoring - far more so than the 3rd Round usually is, as so many teams content themselves with playing out draws. We've again seen some banging goals, and some last-minute changes of fortune. And thus far disappointing teams, Belgium, Senegal, and even Turkiye (though too late to save themselves), finally woke up and showed what they're really capable of. And damn, Colombia v Portugal was one of the best games we've yet seen in the tournament, and possibly the best 0-0 game I've ever seen! Colombia, who only needed a draw to top the group, went after the game from first to last - an effort which should endear them to all neutral fans and make them one of the favourite 'underdogs' going forward.

VAR, etc. - In general, I have found the standard of refereeing in this tournament very impressive. There have been only a handful of moderately contentious big calls; and, as far as I can recall, I think only two penalty awards (or non-awards) looked as if they were incorrect. This is so, so, so much better than the weekly fiasco that the refereeing in the English Premier League has become in recent years. Really, we've seen at least 2 or 3 really egregious errors almost every week in the last few seasons in the EPL, in each batch of 10 games; we've now had 72 games in this World Cup with hardly any. That is a remarkable achievement. The standard of recuitment and briefing for referees at this tournament really seems to have been exemplary. I hope PGMOL has been taking notes.

I've also been mostly impressed with how rapidly VAR is delivering its decisions (although they did blot their copy-book rather today by taking over 4 minutes to rule out an apparent late equaliser for Ghana's André Ayew against Croatia). The computer-graphic renderings of offside decisions are far more readily intelligible than the ones we've been having to suffer in the Premier League; but they're still taking 2 minutes or more to be generated (or to be shared with fans, anyway), which is far too long. And I've found that all of the calls so far looked accurate and convincing (so often in the English domestic season we've seen graphics that differ so drastically from what we saw with the naked eye that we have to suspect something amiss with the timing of the 'freeze-frame'), though there haven't been many really tight decisions - well, again, until today.  Davison Sanchez had looked well onside to the naked eye, but his early goal for Colombia was ruled out for what the graphic appeared to show as the length of the toecap of his right boot (the picture at the head of this post). However,... that graphic did appear to be showing him standing rather nearer the goal-line than he had actually appeared to be, and depicted him in clown-boots that looked at least 3 inches longer than the ones he was actually wearing. Something going wrong with that one....

The Fantasy points scoring?? - I don't think any of my players have yet earned any of the 'extra points' available under the special rules of this game. (Well, OK, I picked up one 'scouting bonus' on Aaron Hickey in the opening game. And I think a few of my forwards have earned an extra point or two for 'shots on target' - but that's it.)  And in scanning through other leading players, I haven't noticed that anybody else has either. Of course, it's pretty much impossible to count 'tackles' during the course of a game, and FIFA hasn't deigned to explain to us how it defines 'chances created', so we're completely in the dark about whether our midfielders should have earned such extra points or not. But I have now spotted several instances where forwards definitely had two or more 'shots on target' and weren't credited by the game with any, so... I'm afraid I just don't trust how the game stats and points are being tallied.

A few small improvements - But there is some good news for the Fantasy game itself. The overall UI design is still horrible, and it is maddeningly fiddly to make adjustments to your team, and there are almost no stats available to help you with your player selections, and, no, the site cannot be trusted to not sometimes lose your team information, but... two of the most irksome bugs in the layout do appear to have been fixed for the knockout rounds: you can now select 'Date of next game' as the key data point to be displayed in the player panels on your Team page during the MatchDay (to help you with planning the order of rotations from the bench, and the pass-the-parcel of the constantly upgrading captaincy selection...), and you can now switch your vice-captain directly to become your captain (or vice versa).  [I doubt if that was just down to me complaining about it. But I hope I may have been of some small help in the struggle...]

BE WARNED:  There is again no break in the hostilities - the 'Round of 32' kicks off immediately on Sunday; so, we have very little time to rebuild our squads for the knockout phase of the tournament. Don't get caught out!!

The nuclear option

 

I mentioned in my weekly review of the last gameweek how very unsatisfying the end of the West Ham v Arsenal game had been - for all true lovers of football, even Arsenal fans.

It is unsatisfying that any game should be interrupted for such a painfully protracted delay, while the VAR process grinds slowly on. It is unsatisfying that a foul on the goalkeeper should be arbitrarily deemed to outweigh 4 or 5 penalty fouls being committed against the attacking team. And, whether that decision was technically 'right' or 'wrong', it is unsatisfying - intolerable - that such a remote intervention might have decided the two most important issues of the season, the destination of the title and the last relegation place.

But we only find ourselves in this vexing situation because PGMOL has so signally failed all season to get to grips with the epidemic of wrestling in the penalty area at every set-piece. When there are this many fouls, or potential fouls, now happening multiple times in the game, the on-pitch referee is naturally overwhelmed and unable to cope with the decision-making being asked of him; but so now too is the VAR team - when there are this many bits of grappling going on simultaneously, it becomes impossible for the back-room team (or at least, impractically time-consuming for them) to fairly and consistently adjudicate which incidents are 'consequential' and which are not, and which should 'take priority' in a final decision.

When former referee Darren Cann appeared as a guest on Sunday's 'Match of the Day' on the BBC, he revealed that the 'solution' under discussion was to bar attacking players in the six-yard box at set-pieces next season.

I fear that entirely misses the point. Well, it would eliminate crowding of the keeper, at least initially; although with the wall of grappling players now moved to the edge of the six-yard box, that might still be difficult/impossible for the keeper to barge his way through. And with the likelihood that more attacking players will be attempting to enter the six-yard box from deeper positions, at speed, I fear there would be an increased risk of collisions and serious injuries. Plus, you know, that's now a whole extra layer of fine-margin decision-making for the officials to deal with, determining if an attacking player has entered the six-yard box prematurely or not. It seems to me that this would just be a horrible mess.

The key problem we've created for ourselves is the amount of wrestling going on in the penalty area - every time the ball comes in from a corner or a free-kick or a long throw-in. The frequent mobbing of the goalkeeper is only one facet of that. And Cann's suggested rule revision wouldn't address that problem at all; it would just shift the ugly ruck slightly further back from the goal-line - probably, in fact, making the melee around the edge of the six-yard box even denser and more difficult to police.

I'm quite happy for the Laws of the Game to remain as they are in relation to access to the six-yard box. We just need to see the Laws we have being more stringently enforced.

But one small change that I think would help enormously with that would be to abolish the absurd notion that you can't commit a foul when the ball is out of play. There are already exceptions to this: obviously, serious violent conduct can't be tolerated at any time, on or off the pitch, whether the ball is dead or not: if you tug an opponent's hair, or stomp on their instep, or throw a punch at them - you're going to get a red card. (At least, that's how I assume things stand. It surely can't be otherwise??)  And I see no reason why it should be any different for other categories of offence. Holding offences at a set-piece, as the ball is about to come into play, can obviously impede a player from reaching the ball when it is in play - the consequences of the improper action continue into the period when the ball has become live. And, in commonsense terms, that kind of thing clearly ought to be a foul.

So, I propose that referees should be able to immediately issue yellow cards for any such infractions they notice - rather than being restricted, as at present, to merely issuing ineffectual 'warnings';... and then things getting too messy for them to sort out once the ball finally enters play.

Further, I'd like to see the definitions of this type of offence tightened up - so that simply putting hands on an opponent in this situation (without the need for any additional shirt-tugging or shoving or grappling) should earn a yellow card.

I would even suggest that we can extend the 'denial of a goalscoring opportunity' rule to make red cards an option, if an attacking player is brought to ground by such an interaction (at least in a 'danger zone' in front of the goal - perhaps a 20-yd x 12-yd area defined by the edges of the six-yard box and the line of the penalty spot). The ball coming into the penalty area from a corner - or a free-kick or a throw-in - is a highly chaotic and unpredictable situation, but one which usually presents a very high chance of a goalscoring opportunity resulting for someone. One can't predict exactly how a ball might break in front of the goal, or how an attacking player might have been able to move towards the ball if not wrestled to the ground. So, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to be somewhat generous in defining a 'goalscoring opportunity' in this circumstance, and to send a defending player off for a major foul of this type.

Yes, I know, this is a 'nuclear option' - it could produce major carnage in the opening weeks of the season. 

Hopefully, most teams and players would be able to take note of the new rules implementation and - mostly - restrain themselves from indulging in the kind of grappling which has so marred the current season. But probably, some of them wouldn't. And we might see 6 or 8 or 10 yellow cards at the first corner of the new season. And perhaps in the first corner of every game of the opening weekend. And perhaps even a handful of red cards too (for second yellow-card offences, if not straight reds).

So be it. After that, everyone would quickly adapt, and cards for these offences would soon become a rarity - because the offence had been effectively stamped out.

Ah, a man can dream....

It shouldn't take rule changes or a major revision in implementation policy to address an issue like this. If PGMOL had acted more promptly and decisively, within the framework of the existing rules, early in the season, we could have stifled this phenomenon already. But now.... it's got completely out of hand; and it needs a more drastic intervention to remedy it. (And it's already ruined the title race...)

Are we starting to 'enjoy' VAR?!

I just came across this very funny little skit from the English comedy writer/performer, Michael Spicer, which effectively skewers so many of the exasperating failings with the 'Video Assistant Review' process which now mars our enjoyment of the beautiful game in the EPL every single week. [I have written about the failings of this system often on this blog - most notably here, where I try to suggest some 'fixes' for them.]

Spicer is best known for an occasional series on his Youtube channel called 'The Room Next Door' - in which he depicts the travails of a backstage 'political advisor' trying to coach some bumbling public figure (remotely, via an earpiece) through a major speech. He recently did an extended one on The Dumpster's senile ramblings at Davos, which is particularly devastating. (The phrase "a laundry-bag of fascist farts" will stay with you...)

Fixing VAR

We just suffered a particularly bad weekend for VAR, with several key incidents being decided dubiously, or seemingly overlooked completely by the VAR system, painfully stumbling, irrelevant explanations of their 'final decision' by referees at the pitchside, and ridiculously long delays adding 5 minutes or more of additional time in a number of matches.

All of that NEEDS TO STOP.

I've spoken on what I see as the major problems with VAR before, but here's a further expansion. This is what I'd like to see happen to improve the situation:

1)  Acknowledge that the current implementation of the system is INADEQUATE, and suspend it until a raft of improvements can be worked out - and extensively practised and tested, before implementation (that plainly didn't happen - not sufficiently - before the original launch of the system). A drastic proposal, I know. But that's how bad things have got with this bloody mess. I really think we need a break from it.

2)  Tidy up the rules of the game, for greater clarity and simplicity.  A lot of the problem with VAR decisions derives from the over-complicated, unclear and often just inept wording of some of the key rules. No-one - referees included! - fully understands any more the current, extensive definitions of such basic offences as 'handball' and 'offside',... or how to deal with the rapidly escalating problem of 'wrestling' in the penalty area at set-pieces, etc. [I hate to say this, but they really need to get some lawyers involved in a review of this. They're not good for much, but they do understand the importance of clarity in drafting rules.]

3)  Greatly improve the speed of assembling the appropriate video clips for playback. A lot of the problems with the excessive amount of time taken to reach decisions seems to arise from the cumbersomeness of the playback technology - or the officials' lack of expertise in using it. It really should take the technical team a matter of only seconds to cue up and conduct an initial review of all the relevant views of an incident (and to select the one or two most relevant for detailed review, and to potentially show to the on-pitch referee). But it seems to be almost invariably taking much, much longer than that; and sometimes, it's just not happening - the best or most relevant views are not presented to the referee at all! (But that, I think, should be the next point.)

4)  Show only the best, most appropriate views of the incident, and initially at full speed. So often recently, we've seen referees understandably confused by being shown a camera-angle that doesn't give a clear view of the incident. Often, also, just a short section of the clip seems to be repeatedly replayed, in a rather juddery fashion - which is often likely to be prejudicial, or just unhelpful. Similarly, showing freeze-frame or slow-motion views should only follow on from a 'normal speed' review, and only if it seems to be really needed. In most instances, there seems to be one camera-angle that shows an obviously 'best' - clear, close-up - view of the incident; only in rare cases, should a second - and, very rarely, perhaps a third - view be needed. Yet often we seem to see the poor ref not being shown the 'best' view at all (it only shows up later on the TV post-mortem discussion!), or only after wasting 30 seconds or more on looking at a bunch of other inconclusive camera-angles first. Showing more distant views in which key elements of the incident are unlikely to be clearly visible, is unhelpful, pointless. Showing still images or a slow-motion re-run, before or instead of a normal-speed viewing, or chopping quickly between full-speed and slowed-down replays, is likely to be confusing and often prejudicial. No thought appears to have been given to the psychology of how video playback may be interpreted, and misinterpreted; there appear to be no clear guidelines in place, no consistent approach followed as to what kind of video replay is presented to the referee for a pitchside review.

5)  Establish rigid protocols for communication between VAR and the referee.  I spoke on this at some length in that earlier post I mentioned above, but, even more than the inept use of video playback, communication from the VAR team runs the risk of being extremely prejudicial to the referee's thinking and ultimate decision on an issue. And that needs to be completely avoided. They should not be getting into any extended conversations; the VAR official should not be giving any indication of what he thinks happened. There should be a set list of formulaic 'instructions', giving the reason for the suggested review, the particular event or events that need to be looked at - but without any extended detail, which might be prejudicial. And the word 'possible' should always be included, to emphasise that the question is entirely OPEN for the referee: 'Possible contact on ball by tackling player', 'Possible handball by goalscorer', 'Possible holding by x and y', 'Possible obstruction of goalkeeper's sightline by z' - that's ALL the VAR official should ever be saying.

6)  Abandon the 'clear and obvious' threshold for VAR intervention. It is an obvious nonsense, and often ignored anyway. There are two massive problems with it: i) The VAR team is often unduly hesitant to intervene, because it might be seen as undermining or humiliating their on-pitch colleague; ii) With the threshold for recommending a pitchside 'second look' set so extravagantly high, referees are inevitably prejudiced into thinking that their initial decision must have been wrong (in effect, the decision is being made by VAR here; a referee almost never has the courage to uphold his original call after being sent for a pitchside review).

7)  Allow VAR to determine some calls directly - to save time.  The essence and purpose of the 'clear and obvious' idea might, however, be usefully retained in allowing a certain category of incidents to be adjudicated directly by VAR. In many instances where a player apparently goes down under a challenge, it is in fact quite clear that the defending player had got a touch on the ball, or had not touched the attacking player at all - and there is no subjective element to the decision, it's obviously not a foul. Most handball decisions - if the rule were more sensibly framed* - ought to be similarly uncontentious. If the referee has made an error in such clearcut cases, I think VAR should be able to immediately overrule him.

8)  Extend VAR's remit in a few key areas.  While I'd rather have VAR involved as little as possible, it is an obvious lunacy in the present system that only straight red cards are reconsidered by VAR, and second yellow offences (which have exactly the same game impact) are not. In fact, I feel there's a case for making all serious fouls reviewable by VAR - at least in cases where it is so unfathomable that the referee did not award a yellow card, it must be assumed that he did not properly see the incident. The correct awarding of corners and throw-ins can also have a crucial impact, and I see no reason why VAR should not be involved here as well. If the system were working smoothly, such decisions should take only seconds (and, as in the point above, VAR should be able to make these calls directly).

9)  The new 'semi-automated' offside decisions need to be much quicker, and have clearer graphics.  Sometimes, we don't seem to get shown the justificatory graphic for a contentious offside call on our TV coverage at all - or not until several minutes later. Almost always, they seem to take at least a minute or two to appear, which is far too much - and is causing further intolerable delays in the flow of the game. If the CG rendering really takes this long, then the system is not currently fit for use; we need to be able to see the justification for these decisions within a few seconds. Also, these graphics are not presenting the situation clearly: they seem to show only one 'line' for the point of a player's body nearest to the goal-line, extended across the whole width of the pitch, parallel to the goal-line; but we really need to see two, to clearly show the distance between the nearest points of the attacker's body and of the relevant last defender's. In close calls, parallax and the lack of depth perception in the CG images make it completely impossible to judge which player is nearer to the goal-line. (And in some instances, there may also be a question as to why they have chosen to draw the 'line' on one part of the body rather than another. But for me, the true problem here lies in the absurd fiction that we can - or should even try to - determine offside calls on such fine margins. **)

10)  Referees should be spared - for now - from having to explain their decisions after review.  It eats up even more precious time. It adds further pressure on them. And, currently, it is only likely to exacerbate rather than soothe controversy. Until some of these other problems above are addressed, these referees' 'explanations' are likely to be more confusing and annoying than anything else. While the rules are so over-complicated and badly framed, it is going to be difficult for referees to concisely or accurately summarise the key elements in their decision; and even if they do, it's often not going to be readily comprehensible to the spectators. I was mightily vexed at the weekend by Sam Barrott's burbling about 'a sustained pull' on Diallo leading to the award of Manchester's life-saving (and unjust, even if arguably correct) late penalty on Saturday: that only goes to the issue of whether it was a 'foul' (there was no argument about that), but the crucial thing to be determined was where that foul occurred, inside or outside the box; and by failing to address that, Barrott implied that he hadn't even considered it.... and thus had made an incorrect decision (or made his decision on incorrect grounds, at least).

And finally, the REALLY BIG ONE.....

11)  VAR decisions should be strictly time-limited.  VAR should certainly aim to be able to render a decision in no more than 15 seconds. And while we might allow them a bit longer in exceptional circumstances, I think they ought to be 'timed out' at well under a minute, ideally only 30 or 40 seconds. If they can't reach a conclusion in that time, they should just admit they are 'Unable to render a prompt decision' and let the incident go - let it rest with the on-pitch officials' original call. We simply can't have these minutes-long interruptions ruining our enjoyment of the games every week (and messing up the TV scheduling: some matches are now running so long that there's almost no time for post-game discussion before the next kick-off - some pundits might be losing their jobs, and I'm sure we don't want that!). Sometimes there are technical hold-ups with identifying the correct portions of video for playback. Sometimes, perhaps, the technical crew are just inept in sorting that out. Sometimes, an incident becomes inordinately complicated, with several side issues also seeming to warrant review. Sometimes, none of the camera angles give a really definitive view of a crucial element of the action. When these things happen, we should accept that VAR is unable to help us in this instance. I would far rather suffer a few more wrong decisions than put up with these constant interruptions to the games.

And I'm not convinced that we'd actually get more wrong decisions if we relied solely - or far more - on the on-pitch referees; because there are still a huge number of mistakes happening with VAR in place; a huge number, in fact, that are happening because VAR is in place. (And I don't know if anyone has attempted to do some sort of study on this yet, but I am convinced that the standard of on-pitch refereeing has declined because of VAR. Referees are feeling under intolerable additional pressure; but they're also feeling, in some situations, that it will be OK for them to make an over-harsh or over-cautious call because their VAR colleagues can rescue them if it looks really bad on TV.)

*  For handballs, on the position of the arm, I would say that the only things relevant are if the arm is close in front of the body, such that the ball would have hit the body as well; or the arm is tight to the side of the body, so that it effectively forms part of the body. There is absolutely no need to bother with all this twaddle about 'making the body unnaturally larger', or the 'natural position of the arm'.

If the ball is fired at the defender at speed, from very close range, such that he has no reasonable opportunity to respond; or, if the ball deflects on to a defender's arm from another part of his body, or bounces on to his arm from close-range in a crowded penalty area, and he could not reasonably have seen or anticipated that the ball would come to him at that angle,.... in cases like that, then the position of the arm should not matter: the defender simply ought not to be culpable.

However, I would institute a 'strict liability' rule for instances where a ball striking a defender's arm (so long as not close in front of the body, or tight at the side - as explained above) decisively deflects it when it is goal-bound. The position of the arm, proximity to the ball, speed at which the ball is driven towards him - all irrelevant in such a case. The only thing that matters is the direction of the ball and the consequence of the contact.

Questions of 'intent' should only be relevant to punishment. Where a handball appears to be blatant and deliberate, it should usually be only a yellow-card offence if the ball is not goal-bound (potentially still a 'denial of a goalscoring opportunity' red card, though that's only likely to occur in incidents outside the penalty area), and a red-card offence if the ball is goal-bound. Simple enough.

** I have always felt that a certain amount of latitude should be allowed in ruling on offside incidents. In 'the good old days', the benefit of the doubt was always given to the attacking player - if it was 'too close to call', he was considered onside. That was an eminently sensible provision, and I'd like to see it restored.

And to make both the linesman's and the 'automated review' decisions easier - and more likely to accord with each other - I'd propose that only the torso ought to be considered relevant, not the toes or the upper arm or the tip of the nose, as we so often see now. In fact, I'd make it simpler still: only the pelvis should be considered relevant. This is the centre-of-gravity and a clear determinant of the player's effective position on the pitch. And most player's pelvises are at approximately the same height above the turf, so it's rather simpler to judge where they are in relation to each other. (And, I suggest, there would be a small additional improvement in fairness - in those rare situations where a defending playing is lying on the ground, and perhaps parallel to the touchline, he won't be playing opponents onside by the full length of his body...) Even in very tight situations, it's usually possible to determine accurately with the naked eye whether one player's rear-most hip is clearly further forward than another's fore-most hip. And that's what we need for a practicable offside law.

And if it's really, really tight, if a wrinkle on the player's shorts might be deciding whether he's 'touching' the level of the last defender, or clearly in front of it,..... then he should get the benefit of the doubt and be deemed onside. I'd always find in the attacker's favour unless there are at least a couple of inches of clear daylight between his hips and the last defender's.

Oh, what a wonderful world that would be.....

[Apparently, FIFA have been 'considering' a change to the offside rule along these lines - the whole of the attacker's body needing to be closer to the byline than the whole of the relevant 'last defender's' body, in order to be 'offside' - for a while now; but Arsene Wenger said last May that he didn't think it was likely to be approved for implementation for at least another year. With a bit of luck, it will be part of the usual raft of 'trial innovations' introduced for next year's World Cup. Although this definition should allow more leeway to attackers, and much easier decision-making, I am concerned that it still suffers from the fundamental taint of supposedly attainable 'perfection' in 'drawing the line', and some decisions could still potentially be given on a margin of less than a millimetre. I'd really like to see 'benefit of the doubt' and 'margin of error' principles reintroduced into the application of this rule, to try to avoid that.]

The trouble with VAR

I just came across this interesting video from Youtuber Dagnal Diagonal, which provides a pretty good survey of some of the most egregious examples of VAR screw-ups over the last couple of seasons - and presents some suggestions for improvement. (Strangely, although it's invariably a major focus of discussion on TV highlights shows, I haven't seen very much commentary on this issue anywhere online.)

Dagnal's main points are:

1)  The overall quality of officiating needs to improve. And in particular, referees need to focus more carefully on getting their initial decision right. There does seem to be a psychological reliance - perhaps unconscious! - on the presence of VAR being able to get them out of trouble, which may lead to them making hasty or over-cautious - or, sometimes, over-bold - calls at first instance. (I suspect, in particular, that they will often give penalties a little more easily, with the 'safety net' of thinking that VAR can overrule them, or suggest a second look, if they've misread the incident. And that they'll often be hesitant to give a red card for a bad tackle, knowing that VAR will take a closer look.)

2) The scope of VAR responsibilities needs to be expanded - particularly with 'second yellow', or potential 'second yellow' incidents (which are just the same in game impact as a straight red card, so it's absurd that they should be treated differently under the VAR protocols).

3)  Refs need to get over the prejudice that there's an overwhelming expectation they ought to change their original decision if they're directed to the pitch-side TV monitor (easier said than done!). Dagnal suggests it might help if they're allowed an additional category of response, as in pitch-side reviews in American football, where an initial call can be simply 'not overruled' - instead of actively confirmed - if the TV playbacks are not readily able to provide conclusive evidence one way or the other.

I rather feel that this last suggestion of his really goes to another issue: the frequent fallibility or inconclusiveness of the available TV coverage of an incident. Encouraging referees to be more confident in their original decision, and not put under any weight of expectation as to what conclusion they should reach when sent for a second look at an incident, is more a matter of training. 

And I think stricter guidelines on the way that the on-pitch and off-pitch officials communicate with each other are essential too. They should not be getting into any extended conversations; the VAR official should not be giving any indication of what he thinks happened. There should be a set list of formulaic 'instructions', giving the reason for the suggested review, the particular event or events that need to be looked at - but without any extended detail, which might be prejudicial. And the word 'possible' should always be included, to emphasise that the question is entirely OPEN for the referee: 'Possible contact on ball by tackling player', 'Possible handball by goalscorer', 'Possible holding by x and y', 'Possible obstruction of goalkeeper's sightline by z' - that's ALL the VAR official should ever be saying.

And there's a lot of scope for improvement in the technical side of things too (something that Dagnal omits to comment on in his video). We often see a referee apparently only being shown a slow-motion or freeze-frame picture on the monitor (which, again, tends to be prejudicial), or only being shown one or two camera angles of the incident, when more - and much better ones - do exist. WHY???  This is the kind of staggering incompetence in the implementation of the system that they need to stamp out, if they are to build any public confidence in the operation of VAR.

Let us hope we'll see better things in this area next season. But I'm not at all confident we will.