Another infernal international break, another maddening loss of momentum in what was shaping up to be a cracking EPL season.

Arsenal’s win over Manchester City – albeit via a deflection in a dull game – teed things up perfectly only for the shutters to come down on club football once again.

It’s only a month since the last break so discussion must turn to the burning issues of the day.

The frequency of international breaks is one but no topic is hotter than VAR.

It reached a new low with the Luis Diaz disallowed ‘goal’ and debate is still raging almost a fortnight later.

Like those peat fires that cause the haze, this will keep smouldering even if it is doused with a few tweaks.

It will burn until the damned thing is scrapped.

This week, referee boss Howard Webb, a former World Cup final ref and ex-policeman, tried to explain the Diaz debacle but only succeeded in digging himself and his officials in deeper.

If it was an attempt at clarity, he muddied the waters; if it was an attempt at honesty, he stretched the boundaries.

His claim that the on-pitch referee in the Spurs-Liverpool game did not know there had been a mistake until the end beggared belief.

Even the release of the audio conversation between officials – a tentative step in the right direction – revealed them to be even more bunglingly amateurish than we imagined.

English FA CEO Mark Bullingham, who is also director of football’s rule-making body IFAB, raised the prospect of discussions between referees and VARs being broadcast live.

This, of course, has been the norm for rugby and cricket for decades and a big reason their decision-making processes are faster and more efficient than football’s.

That the football bosses are still grappling with this shows the gravity of the situation.

It’s VAR’s biggest crisis since it was foisted upon an unsuspecting game four years ago.

Liverpool and Spurs could be involved in a tight title race or qualification for the Champions League and this error could cost Liverpool – or even another club – tens of millions.

A recent poll among fans showed 64% wanted to scrap it while several managers have come out against it in its present form.

No one trusts it, not even those who work in it, their confidence in shreds after one faux-pas after another.

Instead of being the good judges from upon high, they’re a laughing stock.

If you were asked what the biggest blight on the beautiful game is, in some countries the answer would be ‘match-fixing.’

But in Europe, especially the UK, it is VAR. In fact, it is hard to think of anything more damaging to the flow, tempo and spectacle than frequent and lengthy stoppages.

VAR interruptions are football’s very own passion killers.

Besides ruining the atmosphere, fans, either in the ground or at home, are left clueless about how long a decision is going to take.

Every time, a decision ‘goes upstairs’, there’s a good chance of a toilet break.

A brief wait would be worthwhile to get it right, but even VAR supporters claim only marginal gains in offside decisions.

Justifying VAR on this basis is like claiming to be reducing crime by handing out more parking tickets.

But not all the current mayhem is VAR’s fault.

When Winston Churchill described the Soviet Union as “a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma,” he might have been talking about the handball rule.

Despite what IFAB has the temerity to call “clarifications,” it is more confusing than ever.

Players and commentators often admit they no longer understand it. Nor, it seems, do referees.

Interpretations differ from game to game, but the only way players can guarantee they don’t commit this cardinal sin is through amputation.

Every other match, we see a ball blasted from a metre away that hits a player’s arm and a penalty is given.

Or not, if the referee is one of the few that still use that old tool once known as “discretion.”

Liverpool boss Jurgen Klopp was understandably frustrated to lose that game at Spurs.

And his call for a replay shows he hasn’t forgotten twice missing out on the title by a single point.

But Brighton defender Lewis Dunk chimed in to say if Liverpool deserve a replay, Brighton should get two.

Last season, the Seagulls received two apologies from the referee’s body PGMOL for incorrectly drawn lines for an offside and a penalty wrongly denied.

Yes, referees are human and they’re to blame, not the technology.

But why have this ‘assistance’ if it is only prolonging the agony and not being of any benefit?

To oppose VAR in its present form is not to oppose technology forever. The goal-line method has worked brilliantly: was a long time in coming but worth the wait.

In contrast, VAR was not ready, rushed and has not proved as advantageous as expected.

Delays, confusion and inconsistencies have more than negated any marginal gains.

Spurs’ Australian boss Ange Postecoglou summed it up perfectly when asked if he would get rid of VAR.

He said: “I would in its current form. I don’t think that technology’s ready for our game. With VAR at the moment, the more we use it I think the worse it’s going to get.”

He added: “This is probably the only time I’m happy I’m 58 and not 38. I don’t know what the game is going to look like in 20 years’ time and I’m not sure I would like it with the way it’s going.”

One big negative is how VAR is received – with officials in a distant cubicle full of screens, it smacks of Big Brother. At least their rugby and cricket counterparts are at the game and we hear their voices.

If only football had waited. The semi-automated offside now looks fit for purpose and takes only a couple of minutes.

If VAR had never been thrust upon us and offside tech had just been announced as an aid to referees as goal-line tech was, it would have been accepted.

As would reverting to the old handball rule.

It’s not too late.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.