THE MEANING OF THE ZIDANE DECISION.

    Now that all the dust has settled on the clash between Zinedine Zidane and Marco Materazzi in the final match of the 2006 World Cup, perhaps it’s time to reflect on the punishment handed down by FIFA to the two players.  In particular, we should ask: What does the decision mean for referees?  Not only in the World Cup, but in our weekly matches at all levels of the game.
 

   Over the past few weeks, we’ve certainly seen the gamut of vituperative opinions about the incident, most of them, I have to say rather sadly, directed towards the French-Algerian midfielder. You’ve read them: What was he thinking?  How could such an experienced player lose his cool so completely that he may have cost his nation the championship?  Was there anything so offensive as to justify such a vicious response?  And on and on . . .
    I allowed myself a faint glimmer of hope that FIFA would deal with it wisely, after I saw that the committee was inviting (read: ordering) Materazzi to explain what he said to Zidane.  The invitation meant that they were going beyond the incident, beyond the mere act, to try and establish the root cause of the ugliness.  (And, by the way, I have been around this game long enough to believe that had it been some journeyman player from one of the lesser countries who had nutted his opponent, the committee would never have asked for both sides.  They would simply have nailed the bloke who delivered the “Liverpool kiss”, and given only their sympathies to the real culprit, the provocateur.)  So, however foolish his act, Zidane’s fame did produce an unexpected benefit for the soccer-world.
    In deciding to punish Zidane and Materazzi, they declared that the behavior of both players was unacceptable, even though the referee did not recognize that the Italian had done anything wrong.  Perhaps the laws of the game are different in Argentina, but my copies say that a player shall be sent off for the use of foul or abusive language.  I don’t know whether Materazzi said anything foul, but my instincts on the day told me that what he said was at least abusive.  My instincts were right.
    For referees everywhere, FIFA is saying that we have to pay attention to all kinds of abusive language.  FIFA is expecting us to identify provocateurs and take action against them at the same time as we take action against retaliators.  Justice demands it, FIFA wants it (for the good of the game), and we are the agents by which it shall be done.  Take note, ladies and gents . . .
    Next: Balance versus integrity: Is there a dilemma for referees?

Comments

[Anonymous]

I think that's a little harsh on Horacio Elizondo, the Argentinian referee. It was, after all, his 4th official who picked up Zidane's headbutt, but he couldn't possibly hear what Materazzi said. If he wasn't entirely sure what was said, he couldn't send off Materazzi. This is one of those situations where you try to gather information from all of your sources, but you just can't get the whole story. Elizondo sent off Zidane because he knew what Zidane did, but he couldn't justifiably send off Materazzi for something that nobody except Zidane heard.

FIFA, finally using some common sense, investigated the incident, and found out what Materazzi said. Sometimes the referee cannot give justice to all situations, but FIFA came in and dealt with the problem.

[Robert Evans]

It is the referee's responsibility to deal with all infractions, including the use of abusive language. So in the development of your refereeing skills you have to learn how to detect such provocation as Materazzi used on Zidane.
Yes, I may seem harsh on Elizondo, but then my standards are very high, as they should be in evaluating that level of soccer. You could see the trouble between the two players developing, yet the referee was oblivious of it and never dealt with it. Then later he had to deal with the Rooney incident in the Portugal match, and several days after that game, he made it clear he had been getting complaints from the England player, who was clearly getting frustrated. With that information, there are artful ways a referee can use to anticipate what eventually happened and prevent it before it ruins the game. Alizondo does not use those techniques, and that's why I'm harsh about him.

[Jim Gordon]

When I evaluate another ref's performance, I try to put myself in his shoes to recognize what he saw/heard and did. Then I tell myself to recognize that duplicating his awareness is nigh impossible, and that it's generally better to discuss in terms of what I would have done, given whatever I saw/heard. So I'm not going to second-guess what Horacio Elizondo saw/heard (or could have seen/heard, or didn't.) And I'm offended by those who do it from their armchairs. There's a Spanish refrain: It's much easier to blow than to make a bottle.

And to continue ranting, but in a different direction, my definition of integrity includes never guessing about what happened, or judging on the basis of a guess. If you didn't see it, hear it, or get confirmation of it by an assistant referee or the putative offender himself, then you must not judge it. Sure, we may know for a certainty in our own mind, but if there're no facts in evidence, then the decision is appealable and the decider will justifiably be censured for judging on the basis of a guess. "The referee is the sole judge of facts in connection with the game," remember?

And as to the development of tension between Zidane and Materazzi, I'd guess that in that game, EVERY Italian was going to either/both take a piece out of Zidane's hide or pull his mental chain, and what was a ref to do except try harder to be aware without abandoning his reffing of the rest of the game?

Talk about lessons to be learned: A player who switches teams or national leagues gives away lots of opportunities for his former teammates to later hurt him and provoke him.

[Babu]

I think that Mr. Evans is being too harsh - and unrealistic - with this situation.

As the prior poster points out, no one can hear or see everything. It's completely possible that the referee did not see this incident developing. And, furthermore, it's highly doubtful that even if he did, he could have heard what Materazzi said. (let alone understand him if it was in Italian). (and please, I am not looking for a master class on positioning on set plays such as goals kicks.)

I felt Elizondo did well the entire tournament, and this incident should NOT be used to impeach him and his officiating.

While our intuition may click on in our heads and tell us: That defender said something nasty - That's not enough for a referee to send the offender off if the referee didn't hear it.

If the referee, his/her assistant referees, and the fourth official all do not hear foul/abusive language, YOU CANNOT do anything under the laws of the game.
Refereeing isn't about guessing or thinking something happened. It's about seeing, hearing, judging, and taking appropriate action (or non-action as you say a lot).

If Elizondo or his ARs and the fourth didn't hear Materazzi, then they can in no way justify sending him off.

You're a smart gentleman, Mr. Evans, but you - nor I, nor any referee, can read minds or know what happened by guessing or mere "intuition."

Sometimes you are "too intelligent" and try to over-analyze situations.

There is no way to ethically (or under the laws of the game) justify sending off Materazzi in this situation UNLESS one of the referee crew heard what he said.

I think I have made a clear point.

I would sincerely hope that you don't reply by telling we readers that even if a referee didn't hear something, he/she should assume it was foul and abusive in light of the reaction by Zidane and then send-off the other "offender."

Hindsight is 20/20, but in the here and now of a game you're in the middle of, it's a whole different story.

I know you have good intentions, but dragging down a fellow official in this manner does not help solve the situation.

Sometimes you miss things out on the field. No one is perfect. While the best official in the USA once said we seek the perfect game, the reality is that there is no perfect game and there never will be a perfect game.

A wise referee can admit their mistakes or that which they didn't see. In this case Mr. Elizondo didn't see or hear the whole incident. He relied on his teammates to get the most important decision right and the rest is history.