Problem with VAR remains the illusion of “justice”

My own club, Arsenal, was victim of a questionable VAR decision against my second team (I was at university in Newcastle) on Saturday which led to further scrutiny of the video review system rather than the quality of both teams. This is becoming, frankly, a little tedious – we want to see great goals, superb team play and outstanding skill; we do not want to be talking endlessly about people in a booth making a mess of things.

In fact the worst error this season was against Liverpool, who had a perfectly good goal at Tottenham ruled out because of a blatant communication error. The three officials in the VAR booth assumed the on-field decision was goal, checked the award and determined it should indeed be a goal, and thus waved play on – only for one frantically to realise that the on-field decision was no goal and thus it needed to be overturned. This was a systemic blunder and, unfortunately, it is a fact of life. What is not a fact of life is that a system prone to systemic blunders is left in place; there needs to be learning from them.

Such learning would include semi-automated offside (as we saw at the World Cup) and hawkeye for ball crossing any line (not just the goal-line between the posts), open communication between booth and on-field official (as per hockey’s or rugby union’s “TMO” systems), and perhaps greater specification of what may be checked and what may not be. Football, for example, has a tricky grey area in terms of physical contact as the requirement, in some contexts, is for it to be “excessive” – so who judges “excess”, the officials in the booth or the officials on the field?

However, the fundamental issue remains the illusion of justice. The simple fact is that not every decision is black and white; not every decision can be deemed right or wrong; and there is a simple human perception that not every technical infringement actually matters. We do care if a player is three yards offside – but frankly not if there is the width of a shoelace in it; we do care if there is a blatant push or trip in the goal area – but frankly not if there is just an element of contact on the edge of the box; we do care if someone “does a Maradona” or “an Henry” – but frankly not if the ball hits someone’s arm because they didn’t get their arm behind their back quickly enough. “Justice” is not getting niggly about every conceivable infringement – it is about making sure that if the referee and assistants on the field have genuinely not seen something of significance, there is additional assistance from the video booth.

For as long as we persist with the illusion of justice, unfortunately, we will be left with endless “debates” about a system which is far too complicated, which takes far too long, and which gets involved in far too much.

Rugby World Cup Final oddities

As I wrote before the tournament, rugby is by no means my go-to sport but I do have a soft spot for its World Cup, probably because I am almost exactly old enough to remember the very first (but not much before it).

The Final of this tournament, despite the pretensions of the Northern Hemisphere teams, ended up pitting the two greatest rugby union nations against each other – South Africa’s Springboks and New Zealand’s All Blacks.

As we know, if was the Springboks who prevailed by the narrowest of margins for the third consecutive knock-out game. This heralded a few curiosities (specifically with regards to the World Cup in men’s rugby union, for avoidance of doubt):

• South Africa has never lost a World Cup Final, and New Zealand has never lost one other than to South Africa;
• South Africa has beaten New Zealand twice in World Cup Finals, by a combined one point in normal time and four points including extra time;
• In both 1995 and 2023, South Africa beat New Zealand without scoring a single point in the second half (England also won a Final without scoring in the second half in 2003 – yet no losing team has ever failed to score in the second half);
• It was the second Final in succession and third in all in which the half-time score was 12-6;
• New Zealand’s try on Saturday was the first South Africa had ever conceded in a World Cup Final;
• In fact, South Africa has won three of its four World Cup Finals without scoring a try;
• South Africa’s last knock-out defeat was to New Zealand in the 2015 semi-final – by a whopping two points (20-18);
• In the 2015 Final, New Zealand beat Australia 34-17 – Australia’s 17 points were in fact the fifth highest in World Cup Final (i.e. only four teams in the ten Finals have scored more points in normal time than Australia did in a heavy defeat);
• No team has won a World Cup Final from behind at half-time;
• New Zealand lost its first ever pool game at this tournament, to France – those are the only two countries to have appeared in all ten quarter-finals;
• For the second time running, South Africa won the world Cup despite losing a pool game – in fact, this was the second time Ireland beat a team in the pool phases only to see that team win the quarter-final while Ireland itself didn’t (it also happened in 2011);
• South Africa has won half of the World Cups in which it has participated (and in two of the other four it has lost the semi-final to the eventual winner extremely narrowly – in extra-time in 1999 as well as in 2015 as noted above);
• it of course remains the case that, since South Africa entered the competition, any team knocking New Zealand out before the Final has itself been knocked out in the next round; and
• South Africa has never been knocked out of a World Cup other than by a fellow Southern Hemisphere team (twice New Zealand, twice Australia).

The tournament will now change its structure to 24 teams, meaning the knock-out phase will start from the “eighth-finals” or somewhat ludicrously named “round of sixteen”. This is in my view a mistake; it will only lead to some ludicrously one-sided knock-out games on top of those occurring already in the pools. This World Cup had some fine matches – many intriguing knock-out games as well as pretty much any involving Fiji; however, if the authorities are serious about expanding the reach of rugby union, they need to overcome this idea that just throwing more teams to lose 70-0 or 80-0 is the way to do it. They also need to take account of the fact that, ultimately, the last five tournaments have been won by just two teams (with only England or France really consistently competitive beyond those two in the latter stages). If we are really to see the game expanded meaningfully beyond those, both for player welfare and audience enjoyment, some complexities in the laws of the game (particularly around the length of time it takes to set a scrum) will need to be simplified and revised.

The infamous penalty corner

Perhaps the most curious aspect of (field) hockey – for those vaguely familiar and very familiar with the game alike – is the penalty corner.

Origin

Originally any corners in hockey – awarded for defensive offences and for ball played behind the back-line in most cases – took a similar form; a certain number of defenders stood behind the line while the ball was played roughly from the corner out to a player on the edge of the shooting circle (known as the ‘D’). Exactly how this was done and what rules applied varied through time.

“Long” corner

Eventually, a clear distinction developed between a “long” corner and a “short” corner. The long corner was awarded for the ball being played unintentionally behind the back-line by a defender, and was not dissimilar to a corner in soccer; the ball was placed close to the corner of the field and play simply re-started from there.

This was changed recently so that when the ball is unintentionally played behind the back-line play no longer re-starts from the corner, but rather from the attacking quarter-line (typically known as ‘the 23 metre line’ in English) in line with where the ball went out of play. This is formally known as a ’23 metre restart’ but is still almost universally referred to as a “long”. (Coincidentally, this restart has similarities with GAA.)

As the restart is from the line and the line constitutes part of the attacking quarter of the field (typically known as ‘the 23’), the rules for an attacking free-hit in ‘the 23’ apply; as distinct from a regular free-hit, all players must be five metres from the ball (not just those on the same team) and the ball must travel five metres before being played into the ‘D’. Therefore, although the attack gets the ball, the benefit to it of this restart is not particularly marked.

Penalty corner

Still, for historical reasons, occasionally referred to as a ‘short (corner)’, the penalty corner (or ‘PC’) is now unrecognisably different from a ‘long’ (23m restart). It is also the most curious and identifiable aspect of the game, as it is a type of power play from which goals result somewhere between 20-25% of the time (so it is a significant benefit to the attack).

Award

A ‘PC’ is awarded for one of four reasons (most common first): 1) an offence in the ‘D’ by a defender which does not result in a penalty stroke; 2) an intentional offence in the defending ’23’ by a defender; 3) the intentional playing of the ball behind the back-line by a defender (in practice excluding an intentional deflection by the keeper); or 4) the ball becoming lodged in the goalkeeper’s equipment. Also, during a PC, certain incidents which would ordinarily lead to a restart via a ‘bully’ (hockey’s equivalent of the dropped ball in soccer) result instead in a retake of the PC.

Note that, just like anywhere else on the field, an offence is only penalised if it causes a disadvantage to an opposing player or team. This applies to offences by defenders in their own ‘D’; the assessment is not whether the attack would rather have a PC than play on, but rather whether they were actually disadvantaged by the offence. For example, a ball hitting a foot but going out of play as it would have done anyway does not result in a PC, as there was no disadvantage. Of course, exactly how this is judged comes down in part to the opinion of the umpire.

It should be emphasised that the last two of these do not constitute an offence; no further sanctions may be applied. It is simply the case that the restart in such instances is a PC.

Start/End

The PC starts upon its award (indicated by an umpire pointing both arms, extended, towards the goal) and ‘is completed’: 1) when the ball goes more than 5m outside the circle; 2) when the ball goes out of play and another PC is not awarded; 3) upon an offence by an attacker.

This is important because: 1) no substitutions may take place during a PC (other than for an injured keeper); and 2) time is extended at the end of a quarter for a PC to be completed.

Umpiring

The playing of a PC may be best observed from an umpire’s perspective (though I am biased, of course).

The ball must be 10m from the goal post on the back-line and in the ‘D’; in practice it is almost always placed on the 10m dash on the far side of the goal from the umpire, but this is neither compulsory nor absolutely universal. As with any attacking free-hit in the ’23’, all players must be five metres from the ball. The ‘power play’ aspect of the PC derives from the fact that the defence may have only five players defending, with the remaining players all beyond the centre-line.

The taker (known in the rules by the rather fancy title of ‘injector’) must have one foot outside the field; everyone else must be fully outside the ‘D’, which means that defenders must be fully behind the back-line. In practice, they are usually all behind the goal-line specifically, but again this is neither compulsory nor universal.

The ‘injector’ may not feint (sanction, in practice if done intentionally: free hit to the defence) and, having taken the PC, may not approach within playing distance of the ball until someone else has played it (sanction: free hit to the defence).

If any defender crosses the back-line before the ball is played, the PC is retaken and the defence defends with one fewer player (the player who crosses must go beyond the centre-line until the PC is retaken unless it is the keeper, in which case an outfield defender is nominated to go). This disadvantage applies until the PC is completed – i.e. it also applies to any further PC awarded before completion.

If any attacker enters the ‘D’ before the ball is played, the PC is stopped and retaken by someone else: the original ‘injector’ must go beyond the ‘centre-line’ until the PC is retaken.

It is not an offence for a player other than the ‘injector’ to play the ball before it has left the ‘D’! The only issue here is that a goal may not be scored at a PC until the ball has left the ‘D’. If the ball is played by another player without having left the ‘D’, play simply continues; however, if the ball goes into the goal, play restarts as if it had been put there from outside the ‘D’ in regular play. Also, a stroke cannot be awarded for a ‘probable goal’ (although it can for an intentional offence in the ‘D’ against a player with an opportunity to play the ball) as no goal can be ‘probable’ until the ball has left the circle.

If the first shot at a PC is a hit, it may not be ‘high’ (defined as on track to cross the goal-line higher than the height of the back-board). This is an offence; as soon as a first shot which is a hit is on track to go higher, a free-hit is awarded to the defence. Note, however, that if the first shot is not a hit, or if a later shot is a hit, it may go high.

Defenders are not compelled to wear masks, but they certainly should; they must not, however, play on while wearing them beyond their defensive ’23’, nor for longer than necessary.

There is no longer any requirement for the attack to stop the ball dead at a PC.

Conclusion

That, I hope, is a fairly clear journey through the apparent complexities and curiosities of the ‘PC’! Its use, given the obvious safety issues, remains someone controversial, but some form of curious power play will surely always form part of the game.

Hockey rule myths

We are currently bringing our series of Ulster Umpire workshops to a close this autumn, and again we have had a lot of interest in umpiring from clubs across the province. The workshops do serve as a reminder, however, of just how many myths continue to exist around the rules of (outdoor field) hockey – some because of other sports, some because of rules which used to exist or exist elsewhere, and some which are just myths…

Ball outside circle at penalty corner

Not playing the ball out of the (shooting) circle means the attack cannot score a goal; but it is not an offence.

Even at fairly high level, I have had defenders appealing “It didn’t go out of the circle” and expecting the game to be stopped. As no offence has occurred, play simply continues.

If the ball goes into the goal, play restarts as it ordinarily would for ball over backline; no play may be regarded as a “shot on goal” because a legitimate goal may not result (therefore, for example, there is no prospect of a penalty stroke being awarded for an offence preventing a “probable goal”).

“Swing and a miss”

“Swing and a miss” is a rule – but only in baseball.

In hockey you may not play dangerously (for example, in such a way that leads to “legitimate evasive action” by an opposing player), and you may not intimidate an opponent; quite often, attempting to play the ball and missing leads to one or other (or both) of these.

However, in itself, “swing and a miss” is not a rule. I have even had Premier League players insistent that it is…

“Can’t play it on the ground”

You are indeed prohibited from playing the ball while on the ground – but only indoors. Outdoors it is legitimate, provided it does not lead to danger.

“Raised into the circle”

“High ball” and specifically “high/raised ball into the circle” used to be a rule; but it is no longer.

Nowadays, a play (not least a raised pass) is assessed purely on danger – i.e., essentially, on whether it causes “legitimate evasive action” or whether it was flicked or scooped towards an opponent within five metres (typically by convention assessed to mean above shinpad height, although danger is the key consideration so it may depend, for example, on the speed of the ball).

As an aside, it is an offence to raise the ball intentionally from a hit, except for a shot at goal (which is not the first shot at a penalty corner; in which case, again, it almost certainly is an offence).

Advantage

Hockey focused on “no disadvantage” rather than “advantage” under the key Rule 12.1.

This states that an offence may only be penalised if it causes a disadvantage to the opposing team or to an opposing player; in other words, the determination is not (as in rugby or football) whether the player offended against would prefer the penalty to playing on, but rather whether they were actually disadvantaged by the offence. For example, a player who has got a shot away and then has their stick checked has not been disadvantaged: the shot went where it would have gone anyway.

With regards to playing the ball with the body (most commonly the foot), the rules are even more specific: this is only an offence if it is intentional or advantageous. For example, if the ball rolls on to the foot of a player in acres of space; or if it hits a foot but it causes no deflection and the ball continues as it would have done (particularly out of play); or of course if the ball from a legitimate shot hits a defender on the line but goes into the goal anyway; then play on is the only correct decision.

Obstruction

With perhaps the odd very infrequent exception, a player can only obstruct if they actually move. Obstruction is also only assessed if the player offended against was in a position to play the ball and attempting to play it.

Most obviously, tapping the ball past a player and then running into them does not cause obstruction; quite on the contrary, the offence is committed by the attacker (under “interfering with an opponent”).

All five in the 23

At any free hit (or indeed a penalty corner), opposing player must be at least five metres away and those who are not (for example, because it is taken quickly) must not attempt to gain an advantage by having been closer.

However, if the free hit is to the attack within the attacking quarter of the field (known in English most commonly as “the 23” or occasionally “the 25” depending on the measurement used), then all players must be five metres away. This now includes, except for an immediately taken free hit, all players in the circle.

Defensive free hit anywhere in the circle

A recent rule change (in line with indoor hockey and rules which in the past used to apply specifically to the women’s game) is that for an offence committed in the circle (i.e. one awarded specifically for an offence rather than for ball over back-line or missed penalty stroke) a free hit to the defence may be taken anywhere in the circle.

Unlike the others, this one does not cause consternation because few teams seem to be aware of it…

Ryder Cup and regular sport

The Ryder Cup, like its Solheim, Walker and Curtis equivalents, is a strange event; it is one in which an individual sport becomes a team game and a professional tour becomes an amateur competition. Arsene Wenger once said that he followed all team sports, and that meant the only time he followed golf was at the Ryder Cup.

It is also peculiar because, like other periodic events such as the Olympics or the World Cup (in whichever sport you choose to focus on), it gives us a place in time. For some reason I remember extremely clearly my mum picking me up from school in September 1985 and telling me that, despite high hopes of a European victory after half a century of American dominance (just one loss and one tie in that period), the Americans were 3-1 up after the morning matches and it all looked like normal service. My mum was the exact same age then that I am now; it is peculiar to consider her experience of the Ryder Cup (which was barely followed at all until Seve Ballesteros and Bernard Langer started winning majors from the late 1970s on) was so different from mine! In Ryder Cup terms, of course, that lunchtime is an incredible point in time: before that, the Americans were indeed utterly dominant; after it, the Europeans have generally held the upper hand.

You can see from the graphic (I have omitted halves from the final match scores and the other columns are specifically matches won, discounting halves altogether) that there have been some strange outcomes. There have been 44 editions, now 22 as “United States versus Europe”; and even those 22 are split between 11 in the 20th century and 11 in the 21st.

Clearly, once “GB&I” became Europe, the competition became real; the Cup had remained on the eastern seaboard of the Atlantic only three times in the 22 until two Spaniards stepped on the plane to compete in 1979, but has remained there on 13 of the 22 since (and indeed on 13 of the last 19). The difference between the centuries is particularly notable, however; since “GB&I” became Europe, the United States won more holes in 10 of the first 11 editions, but only actually won overall six times (including a period of winning more holes seven times in a row but only actually lifting the cup on three of those including the last). By the turn of the century Europe had won more matches while losing more holes three times and tied to retain on another occasion, yet it remains the case that Europe has never won more holes and lost overall. The turn of the century seemed to change that; only in 2012 did the team losing more holes win overall (though it was the most dramatic example in every sense).

Singles play rarely favoured the Europeans, though the distinction is no longer as marked as it was. This century, only once has a team winning the singles not won overall (in 2010) and only once has a team overturned a deficit coming into the singles to win (2012; as noted above, this was a particular bizarre edition and was the joint biggest such turnaround at all); both were previously fairly common (though the United States has never beaten Europe overall without winning the singles). From 1983 onwards there were alternate victories in the United States until 2021; now we seem to be into an era of home team dominance; not only was the United States’ win in terms of overall score in 2021 the most lopsided for either team since the opposition became “Europe”, but in fact you can see that in terms of holes won the home team is becoming ever more dominant (this year there was the biggest ever single match score in an 18-hole Ryder Cup match, 9&7).

It could be my own age showing, but there is a sense now that the Ryder Cup is not as big as it was when European wins were seen as an aberration. The earthquake which has struck professional golf in the past few years may yet have ramifications for its future. However, it is interesting how particular cyclical sporting events give us our sense of time and continue to play a part in our memory of things and people even unassociated with them; and how strange the outcomes in team sport can be, even when the team sport is otherwise individual!

Rugby World Cup memories

Rugby is not really my sport, yet as someone in his mid-forties the Rugby World Cup is a tournament which brings back memories having been there from the very start. As the tenth tournament begins in France, I wonder how many of mine are shared?

This post concerns enjoyment of a sporting spectacle, which I hope all readers will regard as legitimate. I do, however, have profound concerns about the very viability of rugby union as currently played, as I have stated on this blog before. I hope that many of those who are about to entertain us do not suffer as past generations have done, but I am yet to be convinced that the authorities are taking the issues around concussion and head injury remotely seriously enough. We may look back in future generations and wonder how we allowed such obvious damage to health; I am firmly of the view that, as a minimum, the laws of the game need to change to restrict substitutions (thus put a lower premium on size) and stop play after a tackle (as in rugby league and related North American sports).

1987 New Zealand

The initial tournament consisted of 16 teams and hosting was shared between Australia and New Zealand. This was still an era of the South African ban, a five nations championship, the four-point try and amateurism (literally).

My own first recollection was of a truly dreadful game between Wales and England in the quarterfinal – not that, thankfully, anyone locally was able to watch it as the games took place in the middle of the European night. Wales advanced, only to be well beaten by New Zealand. The outstanding game of the tournament was the other semi, in which France surprisingly defeated Australia 30-24.

In the Final in Auckland, New Zealand strolled to a 29-9 victory, somewhat spoiled in my vague memory of the highlights by the All Blacks’ tendency to kick points even when well ahead.

1991 England

Only the first two World Cups were agreed at the outset, so the second, played across the then Five Nations (still in an amateur era with four-point tries and no South Africa), was make or break. The matches between the 16 teams were more immediately watchable in Europe with the group games taking place at sensible times, and were only spoiled by a bizarre group scoring system which awarded even losing teams one point.

The tournament began with a hosts versus holders match in which England was narrowly edged out by New Zealand. The highlight of the group phase was Wales’ embarrassing loss to what was then called Western Samoa (“It’s a good thing they weren’t playing the whole of Samoa” went the joke) which eliminated the men in red and saw the Pacific Islanders through to face Scotland.

Scotland won to reach the semi against England, victor in a truly brutal game against France in Paris. The best quarterfinal, however, took place in Dublin, where Ireland sensationally took a late lead against Australia. The Wallabies, three points down with just minutes to play, bravely went for the try rather than the drop and it paid off, as a late touchdown in the corner silenced the crowd and secured a trans-Tasman semi at the same venue.

In the event, the clash between the two Southern Hemisphere heavyweights was rather one-sided, as Australia inflicted New Zealand’s first ever World Cup defeat. In Edinburgh, Scotland led England 6-0 and then, having been pegged back to 6-6, had a late penalty right in front of the posts. Unbelievably, the kick was missed, and the English went to the other end and secured victory with a drop goal.

The Final in London saw Australia out in front early, with a converted try and a penalty. The hosts were the better side after that, but could not find a way through and ended up losing 12-6.

1995 South Africa

Rugby is not a global sport in the way soccer is, but the 1995 World Cup, played in post-apartheid South Africa just after it had avoided a civil war, deservedly became a global film script. With the “opening” of the game imminent and some fundamental law changes (not least the five-point try), the tournament retrospectively looks much more like the modern game than the first two. Europeans were able to follow the drama easily given the more or less common time zone.

The opening game was again a hosts versus holders encounter, but this time there was a surprise as South Africa won easily against in-form Australia. The hosts went on to win the group comfortably despite a sending off against Canada which would suddenly almost become fatally relevant later in the tournament.

The chastened Australians thus went through in second place to the most memorable quarterfinal, a repeat of the last Final against England. This time England got out of the blocks faster but still relied on an epic late drop goal for a 25-22 win. The only problem was this meant it came up against a new global star, Jonah Lomu, who literally ran over the English in the semi which New Zealand won, in one of the finest displays of attacking rugby ever seen, 45-29. The other semi, between South Africa and France, nearly did not happen at all owing to torrential rain – an outcome which would have eliminated South Africa on the basis of its inferior fair play record. The game eventually was played and was settled by a late non-try for France as the home side squeezed through.

The Final in Johannesburg saw one of the most remarkable moments of sporting politics of all time, as black South African President Nelson Mandela greeted the mainly white crowd in a Springbok shirt, previously associated with whites, Afrikaners and Apartheid. South Africa could not lose from there and, as the crowd chanted his name, Mr Mandela gleefully handed the trophy to South African captain Francois Pienaar (“We didn’t have 60,000 South Africans behind us, we had 43 million”) after a huge defensive effort on Lomu secured victory in extra time 15-12.

1999 Wales

The great rugby country of Wales was the formal host of the 1999 tournament, the first formally played by professionals, with games also in other Celtic countries and France. The competition was expanded to 20 teams split into five groups, with group winners plus three playoff victors advancing to the quarterfinals.

Unbelievably, Wales contrived to lose to the Samoans again, but it was not fatal on this occasion and the hosts still advanced to the quarterfinal. Australia, however, knocked them out at that stage to set up a clash with South Africa (44-21 victors over England courtesy, in part, of no fewer than five drop goals). An energy-sapping semi went to extra-time and led to the Wallabies, just as they had with New Zealand eight years before, inflicting the holders’ first ever World Cup defeat. It was the other semi, however, which provided surely the most memorable comeback in the history of the game. Lomu’s New Zealand was cruising to victory over France before a sudden run in the second half of 33 unanswered French points from a dazzling array of passing, running and kicking turned the game completely. The All Blacks were stunned – as were the Wallabies, who had fully expected to play their cross-Tasman rivals in the Final and had already been planning accordingly!

For all that, France could not repeat the trick in the Final in Cardiff, as Australia opened up late in the game to win comfortably 35-12.

2003 Australia

The tournament returned to Australasia for the first time since the first one, in this case only to Australia, in the third year of the new Six Nations’ Championship. 20 teams again participated but sense now prevailed and they were split into four groups of five with two each progressing. England arrived as favourite, but despite a comfortable group win over South Africa still stumbled somewhat to the quarterfinal.

Australasia again saw an England-Wales last-eight clash, this time won by England but only just. In the real heavyweight clash of the round, New Zealand saw off South Africa. England duly beat France in the semi (despite the French scoring the only try of the game); but the All Blacks were not so lucky, crashing out to the hosts.

The Final in Sydney was the game of the tournament. Australia got an early try but trailed 14-5 at halftime. However, the England scrum could not get going in the second half and three penalties, one as the last kick of regulation time, brought the score to 14-14 to force an extra 20 minutes. England edged ahead but was again pegged back to 17-17. Up stepped Johnny Wilkinson’s less favoured right foot with a late drop goal to seal a first ever Northern Hemisphere triumph 20-17.

2007 France

Played in France with additional games in Scotland and Wales, 2007 was my favourite World Cup, as it just seemed packed with dramatic games. Fiji bundled Wales out right at the start, but crashed to South Africa in the quarters. England, astonishing 36-0 losers to South Africa in the group, suddenly remembered how to play in the knock-out phase. Hosts France lost the opening game to Argentina but both then saw off Ireland.

Two intense quarterfinals were each settled by two points. Australia scored the only try in a repeat of the last Final against England, but was stunningly booted out 12-10. Meanwhile, in Cardiff, New Zealand’s gruelling wait for another World Cup triumph was extended another four years as a controversial try saw France through 20-18. The two narrow victors faced each other in the semi in Paris, with an early English try proving vital as some late kicks gave the visitors a 14-9 win. Argentina’s brave campaign ended at the last four stage as a litany of mistakes gave South Africa an easy win.

In the Final in Paris which was a repeat of a one-sided group game, South Africa again won a try-less World Cup Final 15-6 to go level with Australia overall on two wins.

2011 New Zealand

The tournament returned to New Zealand, which hosted it in its entirety, as it approached its quarter century – a professional game with substitutions and five-point tries almost unrecognisable from a generation before. The format of four groups of five with the now common bonus point system was retained and indeed remains through to this year’s event.

New Zealand was favoured finally to return the Cup back home and set the standard in a big group win over past conqueror France. France also lost to Tonga but in the quarterfinal upped its game to eliminate England and move on to face the Welsh, who had dispatched Ireland. Elsewhere, it was Australia who came through to face New Zealand courtesy of a freakish win over champions South Africa 11-9, despite possessing the ball in the Springbok 22 only once all game. However, New Zealand finally got the better of the Wallabies in a semi for a comfortable win, leaving the real drama elsewhere – Wales had a man sent off early on but got the deficit back to 9-8 against France, only to see one kick shave the left upright and another come back off the top of the crossbar to be left one agonising point short of a first Final.

For the second tournament running the Final was a repeat of a group game with New Zealand expected to repeat its comfortable win. However, despite an early try and later penalty, a converted try by France brought the score back to 8-7 and all the demons of past eliminations returned. Yet a late penalty miss and some sturdy defending saw no further scoring, and the hosts scrambled home to join both their fellow Tri-Nations rivals as double world champions.

2015 England

The 2015 tournament returned to the Northern Hemisphere and was hosted by England. The draw was held well in advance and resulted in the sensational elimination, in the group stages, of the host nation after a narrow defeat to Wales and a more harrowing one against Australia. Notable also was South Africa’s late defeat to future hosts Japan.

The mocking of the other Northern Hemisphere nations did not last long, however, as each of the four remaining was eliminated immediately in the quarterfinal, most notably Ireland by Argentina. It was in fact the Scots who came closest to the semi on behalf of the Six Nations, edged out by Australia only with a controversial last-minute penalty.

Australia had an easier time of it in the semi, comfortably disposing of Argentina (for whom a place in the expanded four-team Southern Hemisphere “Rugby Championship” was a significant consolation). The other semi was much closer. South Africa had, as ever, timed its best form to coincide with the World Cup and came close to depriving New Zealand of a first ever Final appearance in the Northern Hemisphere, but succumbed in the end 20-18.

The first ever trans-Tasman Final in London was a game of three thirds, with New Zealand going out in front and Australia hitting back, only for the New Zealanders to accelerate to a first ever away World Cup win 34-17.

2019 Japan

Japan came into the ninth World Cup as host and proceeded to eliminate Scotland and push Ireland into a quarterfinal with New Zealand by beating them both. Elsewhere the main story was the postponement of some final group games because of the weather – in theory, this eliminated Italy. Perhaps the most notable group stage result elsewhere was Australia’s defeat by Six Nations grand slam winner Wales.

After a defeat to New Zealand in the opening match, it was Southern Hemisphere Champions South Africa which came up against the hosts in the quarterfinal in a rematch of the previous tournament’s shock defeat, but this time the Springboks eased through comfortably 26-3. Elsewhere England destroyed Australia and New Zealand destroyed Ireland, leaving the only last-eight nail-biter to be Wales’ late comeback to beat fourteen-man France (in a near mirror of the 2011 semi) 20-19. Following the theme of 2011, however, heartbreak followed for Wales as South Africa won their tense semi suffocatingly 19-16. This meant South Africa moved on to a repeat of the 2007 Final again England, after New Zealand was defeated 19-7.

The English were favourites but never led the Final in Yokohama, as in a repeat of 2007 South Africa edged clear on kicked points. This time, however, the Springboks added two well taken tries (the first they had ever scored in a World Cup Final) to coast home 32-12. In doing so, they drew level with the All Blacks on three tournament wins.

2023 France

The game is remarkably different from that played in the first World Cup 36 years ago. Players were amateur, smaller, and literally stayed on the field sucking oranges at halftime. There were four points for a try, no group bonus points and no kicking tees. South Africa was banned; Argentina, Japan and Italy were minor nations. In fact, the first World Cup was invitation only. (By 2027 it is to be hoped the authorities have worked out that the draw should take place closer to the tournament, with perhaps the five best teams in this year’s edition all in the same half, but anyway…)

One frustration, for all that change, is that the game has still barely expanded. Argentina has definitely joined the elite of international sides, and Samoa and Fiji have come close; but even Italy remains somewhat stalled and even some countries which were strong 36 years ago have slipped away (perhaps most notably Romania). Until the game expands meaningfully beyond the Big Four in the Southern Hemisphere and the six nations in Europe, it will remain something of a sideshow in global terms (and even, to some extent, in many of the countries in which it is played well at top level).

In theory New Zealand is the most successful team, undefeated in group games and three-times winners with another lost Final. Only in 2007 did the semis take place without the All Blacks.

However, South Africa has a rival claim. Having missed the first two tournaments, the Springboks have won three out of seven – otherwise losing one semi and one quarterfinal each to Southern Hemisphere rivals New Zealand and Australia.

Australia and England have each, like New Zealand, reached four Finals but the Wallabies have won just two and England just one, the Northern Hemisphere’s only title in 2003.

France is the only other Finalist, beaten all three times. It is the only Northern Hemisphere country to be ever-present in the quarterfinal, with an even record of three eliminations in the last eight, three in the last four, and three in the Final.

Wales has perhaps the wildest record – a three-time beaten semi-finalist which has also been eliminated in the group stages twice. Ireland has perhaps the most surprisingly poor record, as the only home union with no semi-final appearances at all despite the World Cup coming into being at a time which coincided with some of its best results in the Five/Six Nations.

The oddest stat is perhaps that, since its lone Final defeat in 1995, New Zealand has been eliminated four times, each time to a team which was itself then immediately eliminated in the next match. The trick to winning the tournament, therefore, is to try to avoid playing New Zealand in the knockout stages at all…

Three points and goal difference

This is the 124th season of league football in England, the home of the game, and we are well used to how the system works – three points for a win, one for a draw, and goal difference as a tie breaker.

However, it is still less than half a century since goal difference (i.e. the number of goals scored minus the number of goals conceded) was introduced instead of what was described as “goal average” (actually, a ratio: goals scored divided by goals conceded) as the tie breaker, and this is just the 42nd season of “three points for a win”. For the vast majority of the league’s history, therefore, it was two points for a win and goal average (introduced as a tie-breaker for the 1894/95 season). Other countries (notably Spain and Italy) apply head-to-head before goal difference, but that has never been the norm in England.

What difference would this have made historically to which team was deemed champion? Interestingly, if we apply the current system to past seasons the answer is clear. None whatsoever! In every case, the champion has been the one who had the most points whether with two or three for a win or, in the event three for a win would have left them level, the team with the better goal difference.

In fact, the champion has been decided via the tie breaker just six times out of 117 (and it would not have been required even for the first six seasons, when the championship would have been shared had teams at the top finished level on points – in other words, the top two teams have been level on points only six times in 123).

1923/24: Huddersfield Town won the middle of three consecutive championships (the club’s only three) ahead of Cardiff City on goal average. Interestingly, had goal difference been applied instead, it would have been level and Cardiff would have won on goals scored; yet in fact Huddersfield won more games than Cardiff that season, so had three points for a win applied, Huddersfield would have won simply on points. So, with two points for a win and goal difference Cardiff would have got lucky – but in fact that was only in place for five seasons from 1976/77 to 1980/81.

1927/28: Everton won the League two points clear of Huddersfield Town, but in fact Huddersfield won two more games – had there been three points for a win, the teams would have tied on points and thus a tie breaker would have been necessary. However, both Everton’s goal average and goal difference were notably superior in any case.

1949/50: Portsmouth retained their title on goal average ahead of Wolverhampton Wanderers and would also have won on goal difference had it applied; with three points for a win they would have been two points clear anyway.

1951/52: In 1952 Manchester United won the championship comfortably by four clear points (even with two for a win), but there is a curiosity here. This was in fact one of only two occasions (the other being 1989, below) that two teams with a chance of winning the League met in the last game; few noticed, however, because Arsenal faced the unenviable task of needing to win 7-0 at Old Trafford to nick the championship on goal average. Seven goals were indeed scored – but six of them by Manchester United (and in fact Arsenal ended up third on goal average behind Tottenham Hotspur). This is a curiosity because, as noted below, had goal average applied in 1989 Arsenal would have faced the exact same task against Liverpool.

1952/53: The next season, Arsenal did in fact edge out Preston North End narrowly on goal average in 1953 after both teams finished with identical records, but Arsenal would also have won on goal difference.

1964/65: The last league championship decided on goal average was settled in favour of Manchester United ahead of newly promoted Leeds; three points for a win would still have left the teams tied and Leeds would also have missed out on goal difference.

1975/76: The last season in which goal average was used as a tie breaker actually saw Liverpool finish one point ahead of Queen’s Park Rangers, so it was not necessary to apply it to determine the champion team. Curiously, however, QPR won one more game so, with three points for a win, they would have been level; Liverpool would still have won on the tie breaker either way but, had goal difference then been applied, the Londoners would have lost out to the Merseysiders by just a single goal!

1988/89: Every goal did count in the 1989 title race, as Arsenal’s 2-0 win at Liverpool in the final game saw the teams finish level on points and also on goal difference: the next tie breaker, goals scored, was used to settle it in favour of Arsenal (by 73 to 65). Arsenal had, of course, only scored the second goal of that final game in injury time. Had goal average been used, there would have been no such drama – just as in 1951/52, Arsenal would have had to win the final game 7-0 to edge it on goal average. (It is worth noting that had head-to-head record been used, as in some countries, there would also have been some but less drama as Arsenal would merely have had to win the last game, not necessarily by two goals.)

2007/8: It is worth throwing in an odd one here, as the table shows Manchester United won the Premier League by two points ahead of Chelsea. However, in fact Chelsea conceded a late equaliser in their final home game precisely because they were going forward trying to chase an unlikely 18 goals to match United’s goal difference! (A similar issue applied six years later; level on points with Manchester City but with a notably inferior goal difference, Liverpool took a 3-0 lead in the penultimate game at Crystal Palace and then pushed for more, only to be pegged back to 3-3.)

2011/12: The next time the championship was decided in injury time was also the next time it went to goal difference – although this time goal difference sufficed to settle it in favour of Manchester City over United. Head-to-head would also have settled it in favour of City who had in fact beaten United 1-0 late in the season and by a remarkable scoreline of 6-1 earlier in the season – little wonder their goal difference was better!

Curiously, quite often a change to goal difference or (more often) three points for a win would have changed second and third; but never first and second. It goes without saying too that teams would have approached the title run-in differently had different rules applied, so it is all a hypothetical. Nevertheless, it is curious that, regardless of whether two or three points are awarded for a win, fully 95% of championships have been won on points without the need for any tie breaker (regardless of which, if any, would have applied).

Why not just rely on VAR?

After yesterday’s craziness – although disastrously I myself had no access to a TV from 3pm – the question was raised as to why the referee would not simply rely on VAR.

There are two prime reasons.

Firstly, VAR is only supposed to intervene for a “clear and obvious error”. The fundamental idea, therefore, is that it is a back-up – it is not in fact there to referee the game. In fact, a good example came as long ago as the 2006 World Cup Final – Zidane’s infamous head butt was in fact missed by the officials, but one was notified of it via a chain of people who had seen it on a screen and Zidane was sent off anyway. The idea is, therefore, that if the officials outright miss something, VAR will pick it up.

Secondly, the laws of the game (in the case of football) allow for an element of “opinion of the referee” (now referred to as “deemed by the referee”, but ultimately it is the same thing), particularly with regards to contact which is “careless”, “reckless” or “with excessive force” – specifically, looking at the origins of the game, the determination is between whether the movement which led to contact was aimed primarily at the ball or primarily at the player. The first Argentina penalty, for example, fell right into that grey zone – there was contact in the area with Di Maria, but was it “careless” or “with excessive force”? Was it aimed primarily at Di Maria or primarily at the ball? Frankly, it is arguable either way. Referees will likely answer that with reference to the context (e.g. the speed players are running at), the intent (is this a deliberate act to cause impediment to an opponent or just a natural coming together?) as well as the actual force of the contact. In other words, just because a penalty was “soft” does not necessarily mean it was not a penalty (consistency, ultimately, is key); but the main point with reference to VAR is that it may only intervene for a “clear and obvious” error – as soon as there is contact, there is no longer a “clear and obvious” error because it comes down to the opinion of the referee.

There is an element, therefore, of having to reckon on different referees having legitimately different views around what constitutes “careless”, “reckless” (which requires a yellow card) or “excessive force” (which in many contexts requires a red card). There is a perhaps surprising degree of leeway there, and often it will vary depending on the local culture. Regardless of all of that, however, VAR has no business intervening except if there has been a factual error (such as contact being missed altogether).

Brazil 2002 was the best World Cup winner

The scandal around the Qatar World Cup, plus the fact that it has been dislodged from its usual place in the calendar, has left me following it with less intensity than usual – indeed, this blog is usually handed over to World Cups in its entirely when they are on.

However, I did lazily catch the BBC’s review of best World Cup winning teams ever (with Gary Lineker, Alan Shearer and Micah Richards) and, aside from the ridiculous placement of England 1966 second in the ranking (something they essentially admitted was down to bias), the simple fact is in choosing Brazil 1970 as the best ever they got the wrong Brazil.

Brazil 1970 was described variously as “the only perfect team” and “the team that could do anything”, and in fact it did score the greatest goal ever in the Final that year. It probably does rank second – behind the same country’s national team 32 years later.

Options

The options were England 1966, Brazil 1970 & 2002, Argentina 1978 & 1986, Italy 1982, West Germany 1990, France 1998 & 2018 and Spain 2010. This in itself is controversial – while it is reasonable to start in “modern times”, there is a question over the omission of Brazil 1958 and a reasonable question as to why (West) Germany 1974 and 2014 is omitted alongside Italy 2006. If we are arguing that each should only have one team in the top ten options, then why are Argentina 1978 and France 1998 (who won as hosts) on the list?

Host winners

So let us indeed discount Argentina 1978 (who were low on the list) and France 1998 (who, bafflingly, were ahead of France 2018 for reasons contrary to those actually expressed). As mentioned in the programme, Argentina’s win in 1978 was shrouded in controversy around the team’s advance to the Final courtesy of a curious 6-0 win over Peru, with five goals scored in the second half after a visit to the Peruvian dressing room by the Argentine President (leaving aside that Peru’s goalkeeper was born in Buenos Aires) to secure the big win the hosts needed to edge out Brazil on goal difference. Argentina had also lost a first round group game to Italy. So it was far from clear that the Argentines were even the best team in that tournament, far less the best of all time, and so that particular team did not belong on the list of options at all.

Let us also discount France 1998, who won at home courtesy of less controversy but still a degree of luck – there was a remarkably late win over Paraguay followed by a shoot-out win over Italy and then a comeback against Croatia courtesy of two goals from the right-back (necessary when you have no striker of any note, as Alan Shearer brutally specified). So it is unclear why this French team appeared, and even less clear why it appeared ahead of the current world champions.

England

While we are dismissing host winners, England’s inclusion anywhere near the top is laughable. Like France in 1998, England had its share of luck, not least the goal-that-blatantly-wasn’t courtesy of the “Russian” (actually Azeri) linesman. It does have to be said that that English team would have been candidates to win regardless of where the tournament was held, but greatest World Cup team of all time? Not even close.

The best World Cup teams of all time won away from home.

Intercontinental Champions

This makes the exclusion of Germany 2014 (and perhaps Brazil 1958 for the inverse reason) all the more controversial, given the epic 7-1 semifinal victory and also the fact die Mannschaft won not just away from home but, entirely unusually, as a European team in South America – beating Brazil and then Argentina.

Of course, Spain 2010 also won on a different continent, but in South Africa the likelihood was that someone would. Spain 2010 was also on the list, unlike Germany 2014, though was dismissed from anywhere near the top of the rankings for no clear reason – given this was the Spain team which also won both European Championships either side.

For all that, there is perhaps a legitimate sense that the best German team to win was West Germany in 1990 (the first German world champions who did not lose a game, in fact); and that Spain was just unlucky to win a World Cup which was in the main just very disappointing.

Challengers

This leaves as serious challengers Brazil 1970, Italy 1982, Argentina 1986, West Germany 1990, Brazil 2002 and France 2018.

Of these, Italy’s win in 1982 was remarkable (arguably, in context, the “most remarkable” since the Azzurri won not a single group game but then took out Argentina and Brazil against the odds) but constituted something of a flash in the pan – the same country failed to win a home European Championship previously and did not even qualify for the next one (winning only one game in the group to come fourth). So it was memorable, but not because Bearzot’s Italy was the best team ever by any means.

Argentina 1986 can also probably be discounted given its huge reliance on one man, a certain Diego Maradona. It is unfair to say that the victory was solely down to one man, but conversely there is no chance Argentina would have come anywhere near winning without him. Maradona 1986 may well have been the best World Cup player ever (certainly, for a specific tournament), but his team was not.

That actually leaves us, aside from Brazil, with Beckenbauer’s West Germans and Deschamps’ French. Was France 2018 really a challenger for the best team ever? The truth is they were never under any real pressure, won all their knockout games in normal time, were involved in some remarkable ding-dongs (not least the epic 4-3 win over a suddenly inspired Argentina in the first knockout phase), and controlled a fine six-goal Final. All of that hints a defensive weakness, however, which probably just leaves that team out of the medals for all-time winners (or, at least, modern-time winners).

West Germany 1990, therefore, is probably the best candidate for “bronze” among teams to win the World Cup in the era of global coverage. Sweeper-libero Lothar Matthaeus was an outstanding player, one of the greatest of his era; and while he was not surrounded by true stars of the world game, he was surrounded by quality in every position and by a team which performed well throughout. The major drawback to West Germany’s place towards the top of the rankings is the niggling suspicion that they were not in fact even the best team in the tournament – Italy’s freak elimination in the semi denied us a true finalissimo between two truly excellent teams.

Brazil

Necessarily discounting Brazil 1958 & 1962 on the fairly vague grounds that tournament coverage was not truly global back then, and also Brazil 1994 because it won the Final only on penalties, we are left with Brazil 1970 and Brazil 2002 and the bare statistics would back that up. Those were the only two post-War teams to win every game at a World Cup.

Comparing them is surely impossible, because they played over a generation apart, in two quite different eras…

… yet, the fact is, the Brazilians of 2002 were better for one simple reason: they could defend.

In fact, Brazil 1970 conceded in every game bar one, and often more than once. The very reason the team is remembered so fondly is that its attacking prowess was such that it did not really need to worry about conceding – its whole premise was that it would score more goals at the other end. Some of those goals were also glorious, much more memorable than those of any other team – from the beautiful possession play leading to Jairzinho’s winner against England to the astonishing length-of-the-field move finished by Carlos Alberto against Italy. No one is arguing they were not remarkable – but they were also definitely imperfect, and that clearly counts against them against the 2002 vintage.

The 2002 Brazilians could defend – no team scored more than once against them except Costa Rica in a wild end-of-group-stage free-for-all, and indeed Michael Owen’s goal was the only one they conceded in the entire knockout phase. They could also attack – Rivaldo, Ronaldo and Ronaldinho still strike fear into the heart of any defender hearing their names individually, far less collectively. Nor should the quality of the goals be discounted even against 1970 – Rivaldo’s against Belgium was a feat of individual genius, Ronaldinho’s against England is one of the most talked about in the history of the game (while Rivaldo’s in the same game was a remarkable 70-yard move involving supreme passing, dribbling and finishing), and Ronaldo’s second against Germany was the result of apparently simple but actually stunning team play.

Game of Opinions

So there it is. It is, of course, a game of opinions and that is one reason it is so beguiling.

But if you don’t think Brazil 2002 was the best World Cup team of the modern era, you’re wrong…

What’s going on with the laws of football?

I have written before on the offside law and on a comparison of the laws of football (which I once refereed, albeit at the lowest possible level) with the rules of hockey. Recent events in the Champions’ League and the (otherwise much tainted) World Cup have brought some of these issues back into focus. Four in particular are worthy of review.

Offside

The offside law is, of course, widely misunderstood (and, ahem, just as often by men). In practice, there are three separate aspects to it – the position, the assessment (i.e. the time at which it is assessed), and the sanction (i.e. whether or not an indirect free-kick is awarded).

The offside position, as the average bloke down the pub probably couldn’t actually tell you, is when a player is farther forward than the halfway line, the ball and the second last defender. This latter phrasing is important – it is not the last outfielder, but rather the second last player at all (a point which was relevant to the controversial VAR decision in the opening game of the World Cup between Qatar and Ecuador). Being “farther forward” is assessed by any part of the body which may be used by an outfielder to play the ball (i.e. hands and arms do not count, even for the goalkeeper).

The offside assessment takes place when the ball is played by an attacker. This does not have to be intentional, nor forward. Again, this latter point was relevant to the overturning of a late goal in the Champions’ League group game between Tottenham Hotspur and Sporting Club. Additionally, in interpretation, the whole assessment is abandoned at the time a defender plays the ball intentionally aside from for a “save” (which may actually be a block by a defender) – other than for a “save”, when a defender plays the ball intentionally all opponents are no longer assessed for offside (i.e. whether they are in an offside position or not becomes irrelevant).

The offside sanction applies to a player assessed to be in an offside position and “gaining or seeking to gain an advantage” (in older parlance, “interfering with play”). A whole raft of interpretations are placed on this, including playing the ball, attempting the play the ball, stopping an opponent from playing the ball, obstructing, and so on.

Both the infamous VAR reversals at the Tottenham-Sporting and Qatar-Ecuador games were correct under the current law and interpretation. The problem was that they did not “feel” right in either case – in one instance, the Tottenham player had played the ball backwards but because it was then deflected forward by a defender, this became relevant to the assessment; in the other, the Ecuador player was assessed to be in an offside position but was well onside upon playing the ball. There are questions here about the offside law itself, rather than about VAR which was only doing what was asked of it. There is an argument that position should mean wholly in front of the halfway line, the ball and the second last defender (or perhaps even specifically the last outfield defender, although such a law would be difficult to write) – i.e. that if any part of the attacker’s body is level with any part of the defender’s body, the attacker is deemed to be in an onside position. There is an argument that assessment should only apply when the ball is specifically played forward by an attacker. And there is certainly an argument that the interpretation of “gaining an advantage” requires some further work – when I refereed, it was in fact playing (or attempting to play) the ball, impeding an opponent, or standing in line with the goal (as assessed as a triangle from either goalpost), and it strikes me that there was not much wrong with that.

Hockey got around all of this simply by abandoning offside. It had come to confine it only to the attacking quarter of the field (which has been trialled in various leagues for football also). I think abandoning offside has worked well for hockey but would not work so well for football, where it is easier to play the ball long and in the air.

Handball

To put my own cards on the table, handball is where football has gone most wrong laws-wise. Interestingly, a Tottenham Hotspur Champions’ League match is involved again.

In an epic quarter-final in 2019, one of Tottenham’s goals in a 4-3 defeat at Manchester City (enough to win the overall tie on away goals) went in off an arm. This was the final straw for the International Rules Board, which did not want goals scored in such a way.

Even if we accept this was a “problem” (and, well, was it?), the “solution” was surely overkill. Now, handball applies if intentional, or even if unintentional if it leads to a goal, a goal-scoring opportunity or a change of possession. This was seen as unfair on attackers, who could be deemed guilty of the same handball offence that defenders would not be deemed guilty of, and in effect this has been evened up by effectively forcing defenders to run around like convicts with their hands behind their back. An example of a penalty given on this basis was one given for Canada against Belgium when a convict dared to release an arm to turn in the air and the ball struck it… it’s a bit mad, frankly.

Here, hockey offers a much more obvious solution. You can simply deem that a goal can only be scored if the ball goes in off a defender or off a part of an attacker’s body with which they may legitimately intentionally play the ball (i.e. not the arm or hand). If it goes in off an attacker’s hand or arm, simply, a goal-kick is awarded (just as is currently the case if the ball goes straight in from a throw-in, a dropped ball or an indirect free-kick). This is similar to in hockey where a shot from outside the circle (hockey’s penalty area) – or even from inside it at a penalty corner if the ball has not gone outside since it was taken – cannot result in a goal; it is not uncommon even for keepers simply to let the ball pass into the goal enabling the hit-out (equivalent of goal-kick). This would return the handball offence to being for intentional handball only, and stop the sense of having to even it up by treating defenders in their own penalty area like convicts…

Match timing

Arsenal’s epic late title win in 1989 is slightly understood in retrospect because not only was the winning goal scored in injury time, but there really wasn’t very much injury time (on that occasion two minutes were played, as was fairly typical at the time). 23 years later, when Manchester City also pulled out a late turnaround, they scored twice in injury time but they already had longer (five minutes; again, as had become typical at the time). Now, ten minutes or more is becoming, if not typical, far from unusual.

This is tied to a determination from the authorities that the ball should be in play for longer, and indeed in the professional game it was already in play for longer in 2012 than in 1989. The issue, however, is that the game itself is lasting a lot longer – tampering with TV schedules and in some ways detracting from the drama of “injury time” goals (which are now not much rarer than a goal in the last ten minutes was 30 or 40 years ago).

Here, on balance, the authorities probably have it right. Hockey times precisely – time is stopped for specific events (these actually vary depending on the level and the competition but always include a penalty stroke and, almost always now, a card) and when time is up it is up (even if someone has just unleashed a shot or is about to put the ball in an empty net). This has its merits, but arguably football’s tendency to end time when the ball is in midfield or out of play is probably more appropriate (at least to it).

This does bring us to a further point, however…

Rolling substitutions

The decision by the Iranian keeper to remain on the field against England having suffered an evidently serious concussion was worrying. Concussion is not something, in any sport, which can be left to the player, nor even to the player’s team. The football authorities at top level have tried to intervene by seeking independent medical advice based on TV pictures, but this is still not binding.

In sports such as hockey, any blow with even the potential to cause concussion requires a departure from the field. Of course, hockey has the advantage that it has rolling substitutes, so the team is not at the disadvantage of playing with one fewer during any period where a concussion is assessed; this would not currently be the case in football. (Formally, therefore, the game of hockey is now played between two teams of up to 16, or 18 in some circumstances, with 11 permitted on-field at any given time.)

At least, it would not be the case at top level. In fact, the laws of the game already permit rolling substitutes, but these have not been put into force in much of the professional game.

The route to rolling substitutes in hockey was not smooth, however. Initially, they resulted in the development of penalty corner specialists, who entered play only at attacking penalty corners and often whose only role in the game was to attempt to score from them. Subsequently, the rules changed to bar substitutions of outfielders by either team between the award and completion (carefully defined) of a penalty corner. In football, it is hard to know where this law of unintended consequences would fall – I think we can be fairly sure that few would regard “specialists” coming on only for corners or attacking free-kicks as within the spirit of the game.

Nevertheless, rolling substitutes – whether generally permitted or specific to cases of suspected concussion – are surely part of the future of the game. For player health reasons, some means of moving in this direction should be found soon.

Conclusion

I am not convinced huge changes are needed to the laws of football, but changes to interpretation would surely help.

Football is the world game because of its beguiling simplicity – those who make and guide its laws should be informed by that basic premise. Offside should be assessed when the ball is played by an attacker, handball should apply only if the arm has been placed intentionally to play or potentially block the ball, and rolling substitutes should become the norm at least in cases of potential concussion.

Most laws have moved in the direction of simplification in past decades. For example, a goal may now be scored directly from any kicked restart except a dropped ball or indirect free-kick, and any restart entering the player’s own goal directly results in a corner – this used to be far more complex. Kick-offs have been simplified; laws around defensive walls usefully clarified, and so on. The back-pass law was also in fact a simplification, ultimately allowing for easier comprehension of the laws around the goalkeeper’s “possession” of the ball (which used to be subject to all sort of niggly rules, such as the “four step” rule now thankfully long forgotten).

So football will probably get there. It would be good if it were sooner rather than later!

One thing you don’t go into refereeing or umpiring for is money; it is a vocation and, particularly with hockey, it remains an amateur pursuit rarely fully compensated. This is the way it should be – officials should do it for the love of the game. And so it is with pieces such as this one, put out there for information and debate. That is the way it will always be. However, if you particularly enjoy my pieces on officiating, feel free to buy a coffee to keep me more awake… plenty of players and coaches will tell you I need it…