- Jul 1, 2005
- 4,453
- 3,117
Seeing as the subject of the travesty of justice at Old Trafford has just came up again I thought I'd finally get round to giving you my views on how to prevent them. Sorry about the length but it's an article and there's quite a bit to say. Hope you enjoy
*********************************
23 years ago I watched my first professional football match - a 0-0 draw between the mighty Spurs and Man U at Old Trafford. On an otherwise fairly inconspicuous day in the club's history we all walked away raving about marvellous play by Glen Hoddle, Chris Waddle and others, even though nobody had scored. Roll on a couple of decades and after the same fixture, a game of 7 goals, the conversation was dominated by refereeing. In any other sport other than football that would seem absurd and that's a very damning indictment.
The one undeniable thing that this alludes to is that refereeing and discipline are more important now than they have ever been. Why ?
Well many reasons are touted and they probably all contribute. The amount of money at stake for both clubs and players, the increased speed of the game and athleticism of the payers, the spoilt superstar/pre-madonna effect and the importing of continental style simulation (diving, feigning injury). Those factors have increased the number and variety of disciplinary offences with which a referee and the FA have had to deal with and the increase in the severity of punishment of a number of offences (in particular, so called 'professional' fouls) means that the ability of a single decision to affect the outcome of a match is greater than ever.
Does anybody really care ? Well, yes, I do. Aside from the fact that Man U and the big four probably each benefit from bad decisions to the tune of half a dozen points per year and that it can even be the difference between safety and relegation (e.g. Bolton a few years ago), it spoils games week in, week out. I'm still fuming about the Gomes/Carrick decision 3 months later and didn't want to watch football for days. Indeed, a week later, the ruling out of a perfectly good Jermain Defoe goal could have lost another 2 points had it not been for some heroic defending. Didier Drogba was possibly OTT in his reaction to Chelsea's defeat by Barca but you can certainly understand his frustration after several perfectly good shouts were turned down that would have made the game safe. Well, fans of other clubs may not care but winning a game on the back of dodgy decisions is not for me. And it's definitely NOT the Spurs way.
What's the answer. Technology ? Yes. Technology should be brought in as part of a more fundamental change in the way that matches are officiated and reviewed and with a clarification of some of the most important laws. First of all replays during the game.
I've yet to hear a single compelling reason for not bringing in video replays. They can remove the uncertainty from 99% of decisions. Just because, in a fraction of cases, a situation might be open to differing interpretations is no reason to ignore it. It's like saying that a seatbelt won't save your life in every single situation so there's no point wearing one at all. While exploding such arguments here are a few more oft-quoted reasons for not using replays:
Argument: It'll take too long
Answer: Sky manage to pipe the replay into your living room within 5 seconds so that's just not true
Argument: Replays would mean stopping and starting every minute.
Answer: No you'd only use them on goals, penalties, sending offs and bookings for serious foul play. Remember how much more time is wasted week in, week out by players surrounding the ref to complain about decisions.
Argument: It's too expensive for all levels of play
Answer: So are stadiums, floodlights, physios, even team strips or goalposts. Only use it at levels that can easily afford it - starting with Premiership
Argument: Doesn't it spoil the advantage rule and introduce 'what if's ?
Answer: No - just like now the ref can simply allow play to contnue for a few seconds after seeing a potentially foul incident that he might normally blow up for - whether it be for the attacking OR defending team. If the ball happens to cross the goal line in those few seconds then that'll be a goal - subject to replay of the oriignal incident
Secondly, is something even more likely than replays (which can prevent miscarriages in situ) to have a significant downward effect on the number and seriousness of offences and ultimately mean that we have to spend even less time going to replays in the first place. A complete overhaul (you might even simply call it the introduction) of retrospective action. This refers to fixing the ludicrous situation in which, for example taking Palacious vs. Wigan, millions of fans (most with the benefit of replays but a few thousand in the ground) can watch one player floor another with his forearm in an off-the-ball incident and no disciplinary action is taken because the ref didn't see it and it wasn't in his match report.
Or, for example, the keeper fumbles a shot and the ball crosses the line by a good metre in anybody's book before he scoops it out again. The goalkeeper looks very embarassed until he realises that the ref couldn't see it and runs 30 yards to protest that it didn't cross the line. Yes you've got it. Roy Carroll. No action was ever taken against him to punish his blatant dishonesty. What that sort of incident says for the 'respect' campaign for referees I'll leave to you.
Every game should be reviewed afterwards and EVEN IF action was taken during the match each incident should be assessed for its severity and the appropriateness of any action. (The FA could even operate a post-match mailbox so that fans can e-mail them over an issue that was not spotted. Like the 3rd eye on Soccer AM). I can't imagine that even a quarter of serious incidents would occur if players knew that they would be virtually certain to be named, shamed and punished. You might even see a new dawn in 'sportsmanship' in which players immedaitely admit that they brought somebody down or touched the ball last etc. like Paulo Di Canio some years ago.
The technology is there. Let's use it and clean up the game.
Finally, it would be wrong to write an article on the subject of discipline without mention of a few laws that desperately need clarification because we see refs mis-interpret them week-in week-out, even when they have a crystal-clear view from 5 yards:
1. The 'winning the ball' is not a foul rule.
The simple fact for me is that a good tackle is about taking the ball away so that the opponent can not immediately use it against you. If you don't do that and you bring the player down then you have fouled him. It is not sufficient to get the feigntest of touches that creates no change in direction and maybe pushes the ball an inch along. The player could still use the ball as before and has been prevented from doing so unfairly
2. The 'ball to hand or hand to ball rule' in the area.
Again the simple fact here is that if a player's hand/arm has blocked a cross, pass or shot when the ball wouldn't otherwise have been blocked by his body then that's a penalty but there should be no punishment. If the ref deems that the player has intentionally done this - e.g. stuck out his hand/arm quite obviously then he should be sent off
3. The 'not interfering with play' rule.
For me, any opposing player in your penalty area is interfering with play. However, if people don't like that then whatever we do have needs to be concrete e.g. any player who was originally offside cannot be involved in the play again for 10 seconds or say, until the ball has been back in their own half.
Thanks for reading
Copyright Adam456 2009 :wink:
*********************************
23 years ago I watched my first professional football match - a 0-0 draw between the mighty Spurs and Man U at Old Trafford. On an otherwise fairly inconspicuous day in the club's history we all walked away raving about marvellous play by Glen Hoddle, Chris Waddle and others, even though nobody had scored. Roll on a couple of decades and after the same fixture, a game of 7 goals, the conversation was dominated by refereeing. In any other sport other than football that would seem absurd and that's a very damning indictment.
The one undeniable thing that this alludes to is that refereeing and discipline are more important now than they have ever been. Why ?
Well many reasons are touted and they probably all contribute. The amount of money at stake for both clubs and players, the increased speed of the game and athleticism of the payers, the spoilt superstar/pre-madonna effect and the importing of continental style simulation (diving, feigning injury). Those factors have increased the number and variety of disciplinary offences with which a referee and the FA have had to deal with and the increase in the severity of punishment of a number of offences (in particular, so called 'professional' fouls) means that the ability of a single decision to affect the outcome of a match is greater than ever.
Does anybody really care ? Well, yes, I do. Aside from the fact that Man U and the big four probably each benefit from bad decisions to the tune of half a dozen points per year and that it can even be the difference between safety and relegation (e.g. Bolton a few years ago), it spoils games week in, week out. I'm still fuming about the Gomes/Carrick decision 3 months later and didn't want to watch football for days. Indeed, a week later, the ruling out of a perfectly good Jermain Defoe goal could have lost another 2 points had it not been for some heroic defending. Didier Drogba was possibly OTT in his reaction to Chelsea's defeat by Barca but you can certainly understand his frustration after several perfectly good shouts were turned down that would have made the game safe. Well, fans of other clubs may not care but winning a game on the back of dodgy decisions is not for me. And it's definitely NOT the Spurs way.
What's the answer. Technology ? Yes. Technology should be brought in as part of a more fundamental change in the way that matches are officiated and reviewed and with a clarification of some of the most important laws. First of all replays during the game.
I've yet to hear a single compelling reason for not bringing in video replays. They can remove the uncertainty from 99% of decisions. Just because, in a fraction of cases, a situation might be open to differing interpretations is no reason to ignore it. It's like saying that a seatbelt won't save your life in every single situation so there's no point wearing one at all. While exploding such arguments here are a few more oft-quoted reasons for not using replays:
Argument: It'll take too long
Answer: Sky manage to pipe the replay into your living room within 5 seconds so that's just not true
Argument: Replays would mean stopping and starting every minute.
Answer: No you'd only use them on goals, penalties, sending offs and bookings for serious foul play. Remember how much more time is wasted week in, week out by players surrounding the ref to complain about decisions.
Argument: It's too expensive for all levels of play
Answer: So are stadiums, floodlights, physios, even team strips or goalposts. Only use it at levels that can easily afford it - starting with Premiership
Argument: Doesn't it spoil the advantage rule and introduce 'what if's ?
Answer: No - just like now the ref can simply allow play to contnue for a few seconds after seeing a potentially foul incident that he might normally blow up for - whether it be for the attacking OR defending team. If the ball happens to cross the goal line in those few seconds then that'll be a goal - subject to replay of the oriignal incident
Secondly, is something even more likely than replays (which can prevent miscarriages in situ) to have a significant downward effect on the number and seriousness of offences and ultimately mean that we have to spend even less time going to replays in the first place. A complete overhaul (you might even simply call it the introduction) of retrospective action. This refers to fixing the ludicrous situation in which, for example taking Palacious vs. Wigan, millions of fans (most with the benefit of replays but a few thousand in the ground) can watch one player floor another with his forearm in an off-the-ball incident and no disciplinary action is taken because the ref didn't see it and it wasn't in his match report.
Or, for example, the keeper fumbles a shot and the ball crosses the line by a good metre in anybody's book before he scoops it out again. The goalkeeper looks very embarassed until he realises that the ref couldn't see it and runs 30 yards to protest that it didn't cross the line. Yes you've got it. Roy Carroll. No action was ever taken against him to punish his blatant dishonesty. What that sort of incident says for the 'respect' campaign for referees I'll leave to you.
Every game should be reviewed afterwards and EVEN IF action was taken during the match each incident should be assessed for its severity and the appropriateness of any action. (The FA could even operate a post-match mailbox so that fans can e-mail them over an issue that was not spotted. Like the 3rd eye on Soccer AM). I can't imagine that even a quarter of serious incidents would occur if players knew that they would be virtually certain to be named, shamed and punished. You might even see a new dawn in 'sportsmanship' in which players immedaitely admit that they brought somebody down or touched the ball last etc. like Paulo Di Canio some years ago.
The technology is there. Let's use it and clean up the game.
Finally, it would be wrong to write an article on the subject of discipline without mention of a few laws that desperately need clarification because we see refs mis-interpret them week-in week-out, even when they have a crystal-clear view from 5 yards:
1. The 'winning the ball' is not a foul rule.
The simple fact for me is that a good tackle is about taking the ball away so that the opponent can not immediately use it against you. If you don't do that and you bring the player down then you have fouled him. It is not sufficient to get the feigntest of touches that creates no change in direction and maybe pushes the ball an inch along. The player could still use the ball as before and has been prevented from doing so unfairly
2. The 'ball to hand or hand to ball rule' in the area.
Again the simple fact here is that if a player's hand/arm has blocked a cross, pass or shot when the ball wouldn't otherwise have been blocked by his body then that's a penalty but there should be no punishment. If the ref deems that the player has intentionally done this - e.g. stuck out his hand/arm quite obviously then he should be sent off
3. The 'not interfering with play' rule.
For me, any opposing player in your penalty area is interfering with play. However, if people don't like that then whatever we do have needs to be concrete e.g. any player who was originally offside cannot be involved in the play again for 10 seconds or say, until the ball has been back in their own half.
Thanks for reading
Copyright Adam456 2009 :wink: