top of page


The story of the mid-air clash between Millwall’s Liam Roberts and Crystal Palace’s Jean-Philippe Mateta last week took a darker turn today, when slow motion footage revealed that in addition to sending him straight to hospital with a season-ending injury that could have been much worse, the goalkeeper had also kissed the striker without consent.


“We thought he’d simply flown at Mateta with his boots at head height and studs out,” said an FA official. “Certainly the damage to Mateta’s ear, which required 25 stitches, suggested that’s what happened, though fortunately there was no concussion or damage to the cervical spine which could have resulted in permanent paralysis. 


“However, close examination of the VAR footage revealed that Roberts also took the opportunity to get in a cheeky peck.


“This is clearly a much more serious offence than we realised. Naturally we’d like to retract any statements we may have made suggesting it’s all just part of the rough and tumble of what is, after all, a very physical game, and doesn’t require any action beyond the red card Roberts was given at the time. We now realise this is a matter for criminal prosecution, and quite possibly the reintroduction of the death penalty.”


For his part, Roberts said he was simply trying to repair the reputation of his team for being homophobic, racist thugs with a playing style that owes more to cagefighting than football. And what better way to do that than by kissing a black player on the opposing team? 


“Honestly, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t,” sighed Roberts, as he relaxed on a daybed with a cup of Earl Grey and a sponge finger. “I just don’t understand this modern world, I don’t really.”


image from pixabay


A VAR review of a crash involving a Premier League player has decided the player did not in fact crash at all. ‘It was an act of simulation,’ said officials at St George’s Park, who oversee reality and confirm what’s true or isn’t. ‘There will be no police investigation and any treatment the player received in hospital is void.’


The player was found in the crunched-up position in the driver’s seat of his Mercedes-Maybach S 680 4Matic First Class on the B1457 outside Cringley-on-the-willow-on-the-hill groaning like he’d been shot. CCTV footage of the incident was immediately whisked to St George’s, home of the world’s most unforgiving Video Assisted Refereeing technology. True to form, it disagreed with the evidence of the police, ambulance service, and numerous witnesses, and waved traffic on.


Asked to respond to the furore surrounding the controversial decision, officials released audio of the decision being made in real time:


VAR: Possible crash.


Assistant referee 2: Give it.


Assistant referee 1: Coming back for the skid, mate.


VAR: Just checking the crash. Delay, delay.


Referee: Yeah, no worries mate.


Replay operator: So, here we are. Just get a tight angle.


VAR: 2D line on the bumper.


Replay operator: Yeah, OK. So 2D line on the bumper.


VAR: And stop. Check complete, check complete. That’s fine, perfect. No crash.


‘That should clear everything up,’ said the official.





Following a record-breaking(ly stupid) petition calling for Britain’s 2024 general election to be rerun, it has been suggested that all future elections be subject to VAR.


The system, introduced in Premier League football a few years ago, has proved a joy killer, resulting in fans no longer celebrating when their team scores as they know it may be overturned. The nation waits with a sense of impending doom to see the same idea applied to something already as utterly joyless as a general election.


The other complaint about VAR, that it doesn’t really make decisions less subjective because the people reviewing the video footage are also human, may also apply here. For example, it’s been asked exactly what might cause VAR to declare an election result invalid and demand it be rerun.


'Well, for example, if the losing side said the winners had lied and their supporters were stupid to believe them,' said one proponent of the plan, before realising that happens at literally every election (and referendum).


In short, it’s an expensive, poorly thought through distraction from the real issues that will make worse the very problem it claims to solve. So it’s almost certain to be given the go ahead.


'All that remains is to find a company with no relevant experience or technology (but owned by a major party donor) to give the contract to.'


bottom of page