VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

[TheBeautifulGame]

Anyone who understands the actual LOTG or has any understanding of the spirit of the game knows that the incident was a red card for DOGSO. The clarification you refer to even says "An offence committed outside the penalty area that denies a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity will be a red card."

What you've highlighted there is that their guidelines appear to be somewhat in contradiction with one another. On the one hand it says in no uncertain terms that whether a handball that denied a GSO is a red card or not depends on whether it is considered deliberate or not.

I do agree that the part that you quoted there would seem to suggest that any foul outside the box that denies an "obvious" goal scoring opportunity would be a red card no matter what. Though it doesn't mention a non-deliberate handball outside the box as part of that statement.

Part of the problem here is the confusion in the way that they have changed the wording of these guidelines over time. And as a reminder, these changes and re-interpretation of the handball generally is a direct response to VAR. Lets not forget that after VAR was introduced in the PL, it created a scandal by the way that they initially redefined what a handball was generally, leading to players essentially aiming for hands in the box and getting penalties for a period of time, until they realized how problematic that was and that whole idea had to be rethought. It also suggests that the penalty for a non-deliberate handball now requiring a caution would seem to be an upgrade from not requiring that in previous years.

But in any event, if we're to attempt to relate each of these guidelines to one another, does it make any sense that a non-deliberate handball that stopped a GSO outside the box would be more harshly punished in terms of carding than if it occurs inside the box? Forget the keeper for a second, lets say we're referring to an outfield player. So, he hands it just outside the box and he's sent off every time no matter what, but if he hands it the same way just inside the box he can stay on? Think about how absurd that sounds. But to your point, that is what they'd have you believe.

My point is simply that to anyone with an ounce of common sense, given the proximity to the edge of the box, given that he made a considerable effort to retreat backwards all the way back in before extending the arm out to swat it away at the last possible moment, that this should not be considered deliberate. If inside the box, a non-deliberate handball is a maximum of a yellow card, then why would it be an automatic red outside the box? That makes no logical sense. And, face it, this is what is confusing people and what has led to outrage. Language that would suggest one thing, with other language suggesting something else entirely. And this is why fans have no confidence in IFAB. Confusing and unclear language that is inconsistent with itself and open to interpretation.

In the case of the goalkeeper, there is no equivalent to a handball foul inside the box as it would be with the outfield players, so we're left to wonder how this should be applied. My point is simply that the guidelines make it clear that they differentiate between a deliberate and a non-deliberate handball on a denial of a GSO. If this applies to a handball inside the box then why would it not apply outside as well? One thing is clear. The way in which the rules and guidelines have changed since VAR have become hugely problematic. And much of it appears to be reactionary. From the sweeping changes initially when VAR was introduced, to the tweaks to the guidelines each year as a reaction to the problems that were observed due to their redefining of terms of like handball.

We also need to consider that much of their focus here is specifically designed for situations inside the box because that is what they are generally allowed to review. Since they're not allowed to "review" situations outside the box unless it rises to the level of a red card, and we're discussing what could certainly be described as a non-deliberate handball by the goalkeeper, then we're left with two sentences that don't specifically address a goalkeeper handball and at least to some extent directly contradict one another and don't make logical sense.

Give it up, man. Pretty much everybody else on the planet agrees with the red card, apart from the VAR who, even then, doesn't agree with your interpretation of non-deliberate.

The reasons why people think it's a red card is because of misleading and unclear language, and the fact that they see it as a denial of a goal scoring opportunity. And I said I agreed that i thought it was a a denial of a goal scoring opportunity, however their language seems to suggest a high bar. It doesn't just say denial of a goal scoring opportunity, it says denial of an "obvious" goal scoring opportunity. I would submit that while we all agree it was, I wouldn't go as far as to say it "obviously" was.

This goes back to what clear or obvious is. Which is ironic because since VAR's been introduced they've been using the term as a basis for what gets reviewed yet they constantly review things that aren't clear or obvious.

So I don't see how any of us can have any understanding of what goes into their "obvious" DOGSO equation, let alone the deliberate or non-handball part of the equation which at least applies inside the box but maybe not outside. It's all a bunch of confusing contradictory short sighted bollocks if you ask me. And it's all a result of the negative affect that VAR has had on our great sport.

 

[halfcenturyup]

What you've highlighted there is that their guidelines appear to be somewhat in contradiction with one another. On the one hand it says in no uncertain terms that whether a handball that denied a GSO is a red card or not depends on whether it is considered deliberate or not.

Inside the box. That is to avoid double jeopardy on non-deliberate handballs.

I do agree that the part that you quoted there would seem to suggest that any foul outside the box that denies an "obvious" goal scoring opportunity would be a red card no matter what. Though it doesn't mention a non-deliberate handball outside the box as part of that statement.

That was just a clarification, Law 12 does mention it.

Part of the problem here is the confusion in the way that they have changed the wording of these guidelines over time. And as a reminder, these changes and re-interpretation of the handball generally is a direct response to VAR. Lets not forget that after VAR was introduced in the PL, it created a scandal by the way that they initially redefined what a handball was generally, leading to players essentially aiming for hands in the box and getting penalties for a period of time, until they realized how problematic that was and that whole idea had to be rethought. It also suggests that the penalty for a non-deliberate handball now requiring a caution would seem to be an upgrade from not requiring that in previous years.

Whatever. The rules as they stand at the moment are clear.

But in any event, if we're to attempt to relate each of these guidelines to one another, does it make any sense that a non-deliberate handball that stopped a GSO outside the box would be more harshly punished in terms of carding than if it occurs inside the box? Forget the keeper for a second, lets say we're referring to an outfield player. So, he hands it just outside the box and he's sent off every time no matter what, but if he hands it the same way just inside the box he can stay on? Think about how absurd that sounds. But to your point, that is what they'd have you believe.

To counter double jeopardy. You can disagree with it, but that is the way it is.

My point is simply that to anyone with an ounce of common sense, given the proximity to the edge of the box, that should not be considered deliberate. If inside the box, a non-deliberate handball is a maximum of a yellow card, then why would it be an automatic red outside the box? That makes no logical sense. And, face it, this is what is confusing people are what has led to outrage. Language that would suggest one thing, with other language suggesting something else entirely. And this is why fans have no confidence in IFAB. Confusing and unclear language that is inconsistent with itself and open to interpretation.

Penalty and yellow card.

You seem to be the only person on the planet with an ounce of common sense. That should maybe tell you something.

There is no outrage about it, unless it happens to your team. There was outrage, quite rightly, before when the punishment was a penalty and a red card.

The language isn't confusing, it's clear.

In the case of the goalkeeper, there is no equivalent of a handball foul inside the box to compare to like with the outfield players, so we're left to wonder how this should be applied. My point is simply that the guidelines make it clear that they differentiate between a deliberate and a non-deliberate handball on a denial of a GSO. If this applies to a handball inside the box then why would it not apply outside as well?

The determination of a handball offence and a DOGSO applies wherever the offence is. It's the sanction that differs to avoid double jeopardy.

One thing is clear. The way in which the rules and guidelines have changed since VAR have become hugely problematic. And much of it appears to be reactionary. From the sweeping changes initially when VAR was introduced, to the tweaks to the guidelines each year as a reaction to the problems that were observed due to their redefining of terms of like handball.

Irrelevant to your point. Although you are not wrong.

We also need to consider that much of their focus here is specifically designed for situations inside the box because that is what they are generally allowed to review. Since they're not allowed to "review" situations outside the box unless it rises to the level of a red card, and we're discussing what could certainly be described as a non-deliberate handball by the goalkeeper, then we're left with two sentences that don't specifically address a goalkeeper handball and at least to some extent directly contradict one another and don't make logical sense.

It can't be described as non-deliberate handball. This is what you are not getting. No-one else, not even VAR as far as I know, has said it was non-deliberate.

The reasons why people think it's a red card is because of misleading and unclear language, and the fact that they see it as a denial of a goal scoring opportunity. And I said I agreed that i thought it was a a denial of a goal scoring opportunity, however their language seems to suggest a high bar. It doesn't just say denial of a goal scoring opportunity, it says denial of an "obvious" goal scoring opportunity. I would submit that while we all agree it was, I wouldn't go as far as to say it "obviously" was.

To come to that conclusion, you have accepted that there was a handball offence in the first place. If there wasn't, you wouldn't need to review for DOGSO. Handball plus DOGSO outside the area is a red card.

This goes back to what clear or obvious is. Which is ironic because since VAR's been introduced they've been using the term as a basis for what gets reviewed yet they constantly review things that aren't clear or obvious.

No, it goes back to whether you think it was a handball offence or not.

So I don't see how any of us can have any understanding of what goes into their "obvious" DOGSO equation, let alone the deliberate or non-handball part of the equation which at least applies inside the box but maybe not outside. It's all a bunch of confusing contradictory short sighted bollocks if you ask me. And it's all a result of the negative affect that VAR has had on our great sport.

It's perfectly easy. When the ball is outside the penalty area the goalkeeper is subject to the same handball rules as an outfield player.

The effect of VAR on the rules more widely is a different point. One I would largely agree with. But your two points, which started this all off, were, and still are, wrong.

Look, I would love to discuss the effect of VAR on the game, but life is too short.

So, if you just accept your two original points were wrong, I will accept your views on VAR are absolutely on point :)

 

[1961_vintage]

In other sports it is a lot more smoother and seems impartial as well so it could work in football.

In other sports the technology is used to ensure, as far as possible, that the right decision is achieved.

In premier league football, the technology is used to ensure, as far as possible, that the required result is achieved.

 

[richardtheref]

Did the Beautiful Game not state about a day ago that this was his last word on the matter!!!!! When you are in hole stop digging.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Did the Beautiful Game not state about a day ago that this was his last word on the matter!!!!! When you are in hole stop digging.

I'm just glad we have a post count and not a word count against our names.

 

[remember arthur mann]

It's bent.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Can PiGMOL be honest on who gets to see/hear what during a VAR Call.

Henry Winter just admitted on Talkshite he was given more angles to look at the Sheffield United disallowed goal than we we're shown on tele.

 

[Andy TheCatalyst Morrison]

Irrelevant. You don't need to read that whole post to read the concise article where it lays out deliberate and non-deliberate handball and how a non-deliberate handball, even in a denial of a GSO situation, does not rise to the level of a red card. I would appreciate it if you and anyone who tried to falsely lecture me about not having an understanding of the rules can now fess up and admit that they were ignorant of the rules and rude to come at me so wrongly.

That is quite the self-own. If I don’t need to read the whole post to understand what you’re saying then surely you can write a shorter post?!

 

[BlueHammer85]

As someone that supports VAR in the game it should be there to highlight to the ref to go monitor to see that handball, they fucked up , unfortunately it happens no matter how much EVERY set of fans think it’s all down to corruption.
However I gave up on this thread as it’s not to dissimilar to the politics threads - no one changes opinion or backs down, constant moaning and will forever be a pit of doom. Scrap Var and it’s just replaced by ‘corrupt’ officiating for not getting (way more) blatant decisions correct.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

It can't be described as non-deliberate handball. This is what you are not getting. No-one else, not even VAR as far as I know, has said it was non-deliberate.

Of course it can. It's inherently non-deliberate since it occurred on the edge of the box. In order for it to be deliberate, he would need to have been well beyond the boundary of the box. This is just common sense. But due to this not being a common occurrence and the contradictory guidelines, it hasn't been considered.

Anotherwords, it was a borderline situation yet you and others, due primarily to the way in which VAR is limited as far as what it can review outside the box and what is required to correct such a situation are pretending that it wasn't borderline. The idea that a perfectly legal action on one side of the line, or on the line becomes not only a foul but an automatic red card if it occurs just across the line is nonsensical. This would be like sending off a keeper for moving off the line slightly early on a penalty or sending off a player for being marginally offsides. Marginal / borderline fouls should never be subject to red cards. And I would submit that this kind of language creates skewed interpretations, and of course it's all described as such to accommodate VAR, not dissimilar to how they attempted to redefine what a handball is to try to make it factual, and it caused chaos and then was changed due to the problems that caused.

These are fine margins were are talking about, and it's illogical to have an action go from perfectly legal to an automatic sending off based on which side of the line your hand contacts the ball which in real-time is patently impossible to be sure of. This would be like getting pulled over for going 31 MPH in a 30 MPH zone and not just getting a ticket but being sent to jail! It's an absurdity. You should not be subject to a red card by being marginally beyond a boundary on the otherside of which is perfectly allowed. There must be common sense applied in a situation like this otherwise it is way too harsh.

You don't seem to think that his proximity to the box goes into the equation, apparently because you didn't hear it from VAR when it was said that according to them it wasn't a denial of a GSO. If we end up hearing the audio we can clear this up to see if it was part of the equation, until then it's speculation. But I would submit that the action being characterized as a non-deliberate handball by the goalkeeper and that as such it couldn't be considered a red card makes a lot more sense than concluding that it wasn't a denial of a GSO.

To come to that conclusion, you have accepted that there was a handball offence in the first place. If there wasn't, you wouldn't need to review for DOGSO. Handball plus DOGSO outside the area is a red card.

I'm applying common sense to the situation and pointing out that it is unreasonable to conclude that something perfectly legal on one side of the line, or on the line, would be harshly turned into an automatic red card if the handing occurs on the other side of the line. There should be a middle ground for being so close to the border, otherwise you're going from one extreme to the other whilst on either side of the margins.

No, it goes back to whether you think it was a handball offence or not.

And I've said it very clearly was. I've also said that it would have been harsh to send him off for that. So I do not believe that it was a red card, and contradictory guidelines that may not even directly apply to the situation do not change that.

It's perfectly easy. When the ball is outside the penalty area the goalkeeper is subject to the same handball rules as an outfield player.

You're trying to over simplify it to suggest that the guidelines that were crafted around VAR's limits on what they are allowed to review are easy to understand, as if it all makes sense. If it was so easy and straight forward as you are suggesting then they would "easily" be able to correct the error and there wouldn't be controversy now would there be!

The effect of VAR on the rules more widely is a different point. One I would largely agree with. But your two points, which started this all off, were, and still are, wrong.

Look, I would love to discuss the effect of VAR on the game, but life is too short.

So, if you just accept your two original points were wrong, I will accept your views on VAR are absolutely on point :)

VAR is wrong. My interpretation of considering it a non-deliberate handball is sound reasoning. The alternative is what you believe (and in fairness what the guidelines appears to suggest) that something that is considered perfectly legal becomes all of a sudden an automatic red based on being marginally on one side of the border or the other.

It's actually mad to suggest that. I also wouldn't be surprised if they revise this language in the offseason due to this exact situation. I don't get the impression that they fully thought this through or considered this specific situation, about how any supposed DOGSO outside the box is an automatic red, while inside it doesn't have to be. That is not a logical approach. On the border of the box there needs to be a middle ground. Fouls on the margins require an appropriate punishment. This wasn't a dangerous challenge, this didn't cause an injury. This was a perfectly allowed action by the goalkeeper had he taken another half step back before reaching out over the line. It was a matter of timing and in this case mistiming his action, that is primarily instinctual. The punishment for his mistake should have been a free kick given to City where he handed it, not a red card which is exceedingly harsh given where he was on the border of what is fully allowed.

A perfectly legal action by the GK does not become deserving of a red card based on being marginally over the border, especially if you've made a considerable effort to get back in before swatting it away which goes directly to his intent and whether such an infraction would be considered deliberate or not.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Of course it can. It's inherently non-deliberate since it occurred on the edge of the box. In order for it to be deliberate, he would need to have been well beyond the boundary of the box. This is just common sense. But due to this not being a common occurrence and the contradictory guidelines, it hasn't been considered.

Anotherwords, it was a borderline situation yet you and others, due primarily to the way in which VAR is limited as far as what it can review outside the box and what is required to correct such a situation are pretending that it wasn't borderline. The idea that a perfectly legal action on one side of the line, or on the line becomes not only a foul but an automatic red card if it occurs just across the line is nonsensical. This would be like sending off a keeper for moving off the line slightly early on a penalty or sending off a player for being marginally offsides. Marginal / borderline fouls should never be subject to red cards. And I would submit that this kind of language creates skewed interpretations, and of course it's all described as such to accommodate VAR, not dissimilar to how they attempted to redefine what a handball is to try to make it factual, and it caused chaos and then was changed due to the problems that caused.

These are fine margins were are talking about, and it's illogical to have an action go from perfectly legal to an automatic sending off based on which side of the line your hand contacts the ball which in real-time is patently impossible to be sure of. This would be like getting pulled over for going 31 MPH in a 30 MPH zone and not just getting a ticket but being sent to jail! It's an absurdity. You should not be subject to a red card by being marginally beyond a boundary on the otherside of which is perfectly allowed. There must be common sense applied in a situation like this otherwise it is way too harsh.

You don't seem to think that his proximity to the box goes into the equation, apparently because you didn't hear it from VAR when it was said that according to them it wasn't a denial of a GSO. If we end up hearing the audio we can clear this up to see if it was part of the equation, until then it's speculation. But I would submit that the action being characterized as a non-deliberate handball by the goalkeeper and that as such it couldn't be considered a red card makes a lot more sense than concluding that it wasn't a denial of a GSO.


I'm applying common sense to the situation and pointing out that it is unreasonable to conclude that something perfectly legal on one side of the line, or on the line, would be harshly turned into an automatic red card if the handing occurs on the other side of the line. There should be a middle ground for being so close to the border, otherwise you're going from one extreme to the other whilst on either side of the margins.


And I've said it very clearly was. I've also said that it would have been harsh to send him off for that. So I do not believe that it was a red card, and contradictory guidelines that may not even directly apply to the situation do not change that.


You're trying to over simplify it to suggest that the guidelines that were crafted around VAR's limits on what they are allowed to review are easy to understand, as if it all makes sense. If it so easy and straight forward as you are suggesting then they would "easily" be able to correct the error and there wouldn't be controversy now would there be!


VAR is wrong. My interpretation of considering it a non-deliberate handball is sound reasoning. The alternative is what you believe (and in fairness what the guidelines appears to suggest) that something that is considered perfectly legal becomes all of a sudden an automatic red based on being marginally on one side of the border or the other.

It's actually mad to suggest that. I also wouldn't be surprised if they revise this language in the offseason due to this exact situation. I don't get the impression that they fully thought this through, about how any supposed DOGSO outside the box is an automatic red, while inside it doesn't have to be. That is not a logical approach. On the border of the box there needs to be a middle ground. Fouls on the margins require an appropriate punishment.

Clearly a free kick due to the infraction but in no way was that, in my view, deserving of a red card.

I can only say you are wrong in so many ways.

So one last try. Either you are wrong or everybody else who knows anything about football is wrong. Think about that.

I cant believe I am still discussing this with you after a week. I'm out. Again.

 

[Stephen230]

Can PiGMOL be honest on who gets to see/hear what during a VAR Call.

Henry Winter just admitted on Talkshite he was given more angles to look at the Sheffield United disallowed goal than we we're shown on tele.

VAR has access to all their own cameras, plus all broadcaster’s images, so that’s not really controversial is it?

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

I can only say you are wrong in so many ways.

So one last try. Either you are wrong or everybody else who knows anything about football is wrong. Think about that.

I cant believe I am still discussing this with you after a week. I'm out. Again.

It would have been wrong to send him off for committing a non-deliberate handball on the border of what is allowed. You don't get sent to jail for going 31 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. You generally need to be going at least 10 MPH over before you would expect to be pulled over, and even then you wouldn't get "sent off". You would be cautioned.

If you can't understand this analogy then I don't know how to help you. Whilst on the physical border of what is legal and what isn't, to suggest that something goes from perfectly legal to an automatic red card along the margins is mad. He committed a non-deliberate infraction. It should have been a free kick but certainly not a sending off. That would be far too harsh given the nature of the infraction.

 

[richardtheref]

It would have been wrong to send him off for committing a non-deliberate handball on the border of what is allowed. You don't get sent to jail for going 31 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. You generally need to be going at least 10 MPH over before you would expect to be pulled over, and even then you wouldn't get "sent off". You would be cautioned.

If you can't understand this analogy then I don't know how to help you. Whilst on the physical border of what is legal and what isn't, to suggest that something goes from perfectly legal to an automatic red card along the margins is mad. He committed a non-deliberate infraction. It should have been a free kick but certainly not a sending off. That would be far too harsh given the nature of the infraction.

You are talking nonsense again. Comparing the laws of association football with the actual laws of the land????? You cannot be that daft.
I remember an old lady once in Greggs. Asked to speak to the manager because Sainsbury's had changed the price of their wine. The manager didn't know what to say and likewise everyone on here.

 

[daztrueblue91]

It would have been wrong to send him off for committing a non-deliberate handball on the border of what is allowed. You don't get sent to jail for going 31 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. You generally need to be going at least 10 MPH over before you would expect to be pulled over, and even then you wouldn't get "sent off". You would be cautioned.

If you can't understand this analogy then I don't know how to help you. Whilst on the physical border of what is legal and what isn't, to suggest that something goes from perfectly legal to an automatic red card along the margins is mad. He committed a non-deliberate infraction. It should have been a free kick but certainly not a sending off. That would be far too harsh given the nature of the infraction.

You make total sense. Might as well let offside goals count so long as they’re only offside by an inch or two. After all, the attacker didn’t deliberately mean to be offside and he was nearly onside. Seems harsh disallowing a goal in those circumstances.

In fact, you might as well allow shots that almost cross the line to be given as goals whilst you’re at it.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

You are talking nonsense again. Comparing the laws of association football with the actual laws of the land????? You cannot be that daft.
I remember an old lady once in Greggs. Asked to speak to the manager because Sainsbury's had changed the price of their wine. The manager didn't know what to say and likewise everyone on here.

A nonsense would be to issue a red card for a borderline infraction. Something that is perfectly allowed on one side of a line is not a red card on the other side of a line. That is not rational and never will be.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

You make total sense. Might as well let offside goals count so long as they’re only offside by an inch or two. After all, the attacker didn’t deliberately mean to be offside and he was nearly onside. Seems harsh disallowing a goal in those circumstances.

Precisely, which is why the vast majority of fans, since the beginning of VAR, object to marginal offside goals being disallowed after the fact. But it's one thing to disallow a goal along the margins off offside which while often harsh could be at least be said to be "factual". It's quite something else entirely to send a GK off for a handball infraction along the margins that he is allowed to handle it in. The "factual" component there is if it was a handball, a red card is for a punishment of a severe infraction. Given the speed at which the game is played at in real-time (not in slow motion) it would be nearly impossible for a GK in that situation to know exactly where he was at that moment.

In fact, you might as well allow shots that almost cross the line to be given as goals whilst you’re at it.

The nature of the ball crossing the line or not is different to offside goals being disallowed in that #1 it's far more factual than offside since the goal line isn't non-visible and constantly moving like with offsides and #2 it's not as if the fans are seeing the ball hit the back of the net and reacting to what they believe is a definite goal in real-time. In situations in which goal line technology is used, the fans would never be "sure" that a goal was scored or not in real-time prior to the review like they are with other goals. So a review for the ball crossing the goal-line and being disallowed in that case is not as harsh since the fans weren't sure that a goal was even a goal to begin with like with an offsides review.

 

[bondsman]

Another week another joke decision. How can VAR not allow Villa goal to be given.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Another week another joke decision. How can VAR not allow Villa goal to be given.

Because the ref blew his whistle thinking that the GK had grasped it and then had it kicked out. Similarly to why they instruct linos to keep the flag down, once a whistle is blown, VAR does not allow itself to correct anything that happens beyond that point in time.

 

[lust overlord]

Precisely, which is why the vast majority of fans, since the beginning of VAR, object to marginal offside goals being disallowed after the fact. But it's one thing to disallow a goal along the margins off offside which while often harsh could be at least be said to be "factual". It's quite something else entirely to send a GK off for a handball infraction along the margins that he is allowed to handle it in. The "factual" component there is if it was a handball, a red card is for a punishment of a severe infraction. Given the speed at which the game is played at in real-time (not in slow motion) it would be nearly impossible for a GK in that situation to know exactly where he was at that moment.


The nature of the ball crossing the line or not is different to offside goals being disallowed in that #1 it's far more factual than offside since the goal line isn't non-visible and constantly moving like with offsides and #2 it's not as if the fans are seeing the ball hit the back of the net and reacting to what they believe is a definite goal in real-time. In situations in which goal line technology is used, the fans would never be "sure" that a goal was scored or not in real-time prior to the review like they are with other goals. So a review for the ball crossing the goal-line and being disallowed in that case is not as harsh since the fans weren't sure that a goal was even a goal to begin with like with an offsides review.

Either you've got some form of autism so you struggle to understand when someone is taking the piss.
Or you don't know when to quit when you're behind and like to compile walls of text chatting nonsense.

Please give us a break for a bit.
Ta.