Hello and welcome to the game of football podcast from The Times and Sunday Times after twists and turns, late goals and stunning performances.

Did it really all hang on one moment?

Chris, it's Darren. You better have a look at that, mate.

On today's show, we'll discuss that huge VAR call in Arsenal's win against West Ham, ask whether it ends the title and relegation battles in the Premier League, and also talk about Liverpool, Chelsea, Brighton, Bournemouth, Brentford, the Scottish title race and loads, loads more. I'm Tom Clark, and joining me today we have the senior sports writer and Sunday Times columnist Alison Rudd, the football reporter who covers clubs in the south of England with a focus on Tottenham, it's Tom Olnop and the former footballer turn journalist Gregor Robertson is with me as usual. Team, how are we? Good Tom. What do you reckon to my Darren England impression? Really good, very northern. Yeah, I did look it up. He's from Yorkshire. That is accurate. For the referees of northern. Thank you so much. Well, work, we're heading down a terrible danger through here, given the conversation that we're about to have. Gregor, pumped for a show that should be all about the title race and what a thrilling season we've having is instead going to be dominated by VAR? Absolutely. Great. Great. Well, let's set a couple of early parameters. It's a simple question. Foul or no foul on David Raya in the 95th minute. Alison, you were there, so I'm going to start with you. Just foul or no foul? No foul. If I had been reffing in my local park, I would not have given it. Ever times, journalists. They cannot do one-word answers, ladies and gentlemen. Gregor?

In isolation, yes. In isolation, yes. I think that might be the crux of the argument. Tom. Fow yes, should have been given as a free kick? No. Excellent. So, Fow... I love that. I love that. Fowl has done to us. To us.

Fow yes, across the board.

And by the way, I'm exactly the same.

Foul yes, but I don't like it. And that's exactly the whole problem, isn't it? Because it's yes, a foul. I said it wasn't. But we're all kind of, but you're also kind of like, you can, no, I can't see it. I took from your answer that you could slightly see that it. Of course I can see it. Well, is this the moment we get into it?

You're allowed to, you're allowed to. You're allowed to give more than one a couple of words now, yeah.

Am I? Fantastic. Thank you very much, Tom. Thank you for having me.

No, no. Let's rewind to why VAR exists, clear and obvious errors, an injustice that they didn't

want fans leaving a game, knowing because they could see it on their phones, that there'd been

an infringement and it hadn't been noticed by the officials, a serious infringement. So they brought

in that if there was a clear and obvious error that the referee for some reason had missed,

not necessarily through incompetence, but because sometimes it's hard to see because you've got eyes in the back of your head,

that they could go to trained operators in a booth who would tell you you've missed something there.

It was not designed so that you get the referee to go to a monitor and watch the same action 17, 17 times.

If I look at you, Gregor, for 17 separate times, I'll notice something. I didn't notice the first time.

And then I might not like it. I've seen it so often I've gone off it.

I thought your nose was quite nice. I don't like it anymore.

It's not, it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not normal to, this isn't what it was designed for, to stare and stare at something until you spot an infringement.

And I don't know why he's watching the same thing 17 times, because if you watch different elements of the what's happening

...