FIFA's conference

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

sums it up really

 

"Carlos Tevez, the Manchester City player, was killed today after he scored the third goal in a 3-2 win over arch‑rivals Manchester United. The tragedy happened as Tevez tried to jump down from the crossbar, which moments earlier he had scaled while celebrating his decisive strike, and accidentally decapitated himself. It is believed that his snood snagged on the net and severed his head.

 

"Fifa has acted 'swiftly and decisively', banning all snoods until a multimillion-pound conference in the Maldives can be arranged to discuss the matter further. Sepp Blatter, the Fifa president, said: 'This always happens when I'm on the golf course, and who the hell is Carlos Tevez anyway?'"

 

If you are wondering what on earth I'm on about, let me open your eyes to the 125th AGM of the International Football Association Board, which takes place in Wales next Saturday, and where snoods are on the agenda, now available to read on the Fifa website. "We want a debate over the snood and whether it could be dangerous," a spokesman said this month.

 

The excitement at Celtic Manor is palpable: this is an AGM of the utmost importance. The very fabric of professional football is at stake and in Ifab's quest to right the wrongs that threaten to destabilise our great game no Michelin-starred restaurant will be too much, no championship golf course too tough and no spa too luxurious.

 

If you are unfamiliar with Ifab, it is a governing body incorporating the home nations and Fifa which looks after the rules of football. Since 1886 these AGMs have produced incredible forward-thinking, from the golden‑goal rule, which it allowed to run for 12 years before realising it was utter crap, to the latest and greatest contribution, which was to give Uefa the power to trial two assistant referees behind the goal. Maybe matches will be filmed one day, and an official in the technical area will be able to use video replays. What a crazy idea.

 

And so as these great men jet in from all corners of the globe, I thought I'd take a look and see what, other than snoods, will be up for discussion. What is it this year that simply can't wait? What has been overlooked for so long and will have journalists scrambling around for their laptops to tell everyone how football is breaking new ground? What will we be arguing about with our mates down the pub? Goalposts.

 

As it turns out, and I have to admit that I was unaware of this looming catastrophe, goalposts are causing chaos across the world. It's true. Some are elliptical and others are rectangular, square and round. But don't panic, for Ifab has really sprung into action on this burning issue, explaining why "it is necessary to define the position of the [different shaped] goalposts in relation to the goalline in order to avoid inconsistencies between one field of play and another."

 

Now it may just be me – although I suspect it's not – but would Ifab's time not be better spent dealing with some issues that really do matter and need addressing, like why it is that players such as Mathieu Flamini have the opportunity to score the winning goal against Tottenham Hotspur at White Hart Lane in the Champions League in a couple of weeks, despite almost breaking Vedran Corluka's leg with a two-footed tackle?

 

A Fifa directive means there can be no retrospective action if a referee issued a yellow card, even if it is subsequently clear that the player should have been dismissed. Effectively Ifab and Fifa are saying referees make mistakes with red cards but never with yellows. Wouldn't this subject be a more sensible debate than the shape of a goalpost? Players find it incredibly frustrating not to have any recourse over a caution, but I've yet to meet one complaining about a square upright.

 

There are a couple of other things that, in my opinion, would be more worthy of being on the agenda than snoods, the shape of goalposts and what happens if a ball bursts when someone is taking a penalty-kick (don't laugh, that last one is on there as well). First, how about Ifab clarifying the situation that arises when a defender shepherds the ball out of play for a goal-kick, preventing his opponent from getting the ball despite making no attempt to play it? I have seen defenders hold people off for at least 15 yards just to win a goal-kick. Anywhere else on the pitch it would be a foul.

 

And what about changing the time format? After all, the ball is only in play for about 70 minutes. Talking to other players it appears to us that if the fourth official is unsure of how many minutes to hold up, one of the following happens: one minute goes up if it's a boring game; two minutes if there has been a goal and three to four minutes if it's an exciting game with lots of chances. This part of the game really needs to be cleared up.

 

I should say, however, that there are some encouraging things on the agenda: goalline technology, for instance, is back. This is just a theory of mine, but if those seated around the table in south Wales fail to come up with an answer to the issue this time, will it then mean a third visit to Celtic Manor in as many years? "Welcome back, Mr Blatter. Your caddie says: 'Ready when you are, but there's absolutely no rush.' Oh, and may I suggest you remove that snood."