If it was a boxing match they'd stop it.

I'll happily part with fifty quid to watch my favourite team. Loads of goal mouth action, end to end stuff, finely honed athletes giving their all to get three precious points for their team. But you have to wait for the end for the real spectacle, that bit when the team that's winning takes the ball into the corner and uses two players to stop the other side getting near it. Do they practice that in training? "Come on Wayne, you need to stick your butt out a bit further, then they'll never get the ball back."

TV's co-commentator will purr with contentment, lauding his fellow pro for his professionalism. The fans will be split, those that are praying for the final whistle and those that are wondering what they paid all that money for. One team has decided that it does not want to play football any more, they just want to quit with what they've got. I hate it when opponents do it, I hate it when my own team does it.

Referees are supposed to stop the clock for time wasting but this particular tactic is deemed acceptable. Imagine a boxer whose ahead on points, so he starts running round the ring so his opponent can't lay a glove on him. You'd want your money back.

When two boxers stop trying to make a match of it, they call the bout off. I'm not asking for the same sanction in this case, but when a team decides it doesn't want to play any more there has to be something the referee can do. Until the ball has moved ten yards from the corner flag, it's not really back in play, the rules should reflect that.   

Goal Line Technology - what a difference you have made.

Maybe it was Lampard's disallowed goal against Germany that tipped the balance but suddenly the biggest issue in the game was how to answer the question, "did the ball cross the line?

This year every club in the Premier League installed the technology and another few quid went on your ticket price to pay for it all. I don't know about you but I can't think of a single occasion when it has made any difference whatsoever. They'll tell you that the referee consulted Hawkeye on the first day of the season, to confirm whether Fabian Delph's shot crossed the line against Arsenal. There was not a single soul in the ground or watching on TV who thought it was a goal but it must  have been fun to try out the new toy. Richard Scudamore, Premier League Chief Executive says, "The most important thing in football is a goal - was it scored or wasn't it," I can't trace a single quote about some of the other questions that a referee might want answered, like:

• was the forward onside or offside when he put the ball in the net?
• when the player went down in the box, did he dive or was he pushed?
• was that deliberate handball?
• was the keeper impeded when he went for that corner?

Most games seem to have at least one highly controversial decision, some have many. The solution is simple and readily available. Give each team two challenges per game on a restricted number of issues, and allow the fourth official thirty seconds to review the TV replays. It would add to the drama in the ground and it would eliminate a huge number of incorrect decisions. Critics say that it would slow the game down. Not as much as having a gaggle of angry players surrounding the referee to make their case about how they've just been robbed.

Had the authorities opted for video replays, they would have had to come to an arrangement with the TV companies that have bought the rights to the games. It might have slightly changed the dynamic of the relationship between the two parties. By choosing goal line technology, those in charge of our game had some juicy contracts to hand out and a whole bunch of hopeful companies desperate to be an approved supplier. That couldn't have been a factor in their decision though... that would be immoral.    

The rule that's killing the game - Double Jeopardy

You can see the logic:
The ball is played in behind the back four and a nippy forward is onto it in a flash. The centre-back is never going to catch him, so he makes a despairing grab at his opponent's shirt and brings him down. A goal scoring opportunity is lost and the supporters of the attacking team are outraged. A free kick thirty yards from goal is no compensation for the loss of a free run at the keeper. So the bureaucrats who make the rules came up with the idea of giving the defender a red card. He won't do that again.

The problem arises when the offence takes place inside the penalty area. We've seen countless game recently when the result of a match has been put beyond doubt by the application of this rule. Spurs seemed unlikely to overturn their one goal deficit to Manchester City in January. The sending off of Danny Rose ended any doubt. City scored from the spot and Rose's card was rescinded when it became clear that he'd made a good tackle. Little comfort for either him or the Spurs fans whose day out was ruined by an excessively harsh rule. Their chances were slim with eleven men, zero with ten. Similarly Wojciech Szczęsny was dismissed for a clumsy challenge on Arjen Robben in Arsenal's UCL tie against Bayern. There was little intent, the forward was just too quick for him, but the challenge could not go unpunished. Current rules demand that he was shown a red card. Again, game over.

We pay too much to watch football for games to be decided on a single incident. It's time to make the punishment for the crime. Rule makers need to understand that sanctions applied by the referee ought to deter foul play, it is not enough to dream up what is all too often an inappropriate punishment.
Football is slow to learn from other sports, a theme I intend to explore more in later blog posts, but the answer to the question could be lifted straight from Rugby Union and the concept of the penalty try. 

If a defender denies a clear goalscoring opportunity, the referee should award a goal. The defender would only receive a card if the severity of his challenge would have merited one anywhere else on the pitch.

It's a simple idea, it's an appropriate punishment and it might very well deter defenders from committing the offence in the first place.  In the game at the Emirates, Arsenal would still have been one down but they would have had eleven players to attempt to close the deficit.  Spurs and Danny Rose would still have had a goal given against them unjustly, that issue requires a separate solution of which more in a later blog, but they'd still have had eleven men on the field.

Should we carry on with the compulsory red card or take a lead from Rugby Union? Please let me know what you think.