Eduardo, Kaka, referees, kicking and the laws: Can we do better?

    If there can be anything positive coming out of the horrific injury to Eduardo last Saturday, we'd have to start with the fact that he is now out of hospital.  The tibia wasn't broken, and the fractured fibula and dislocated ankle are now back in place.
    Then we can add that although he could have lost his foot (by amputation) if the treatment and repair had not started immediately, it now appears after surgery that he may be able to run again in about nine months.  And then we can add what in my opinion may bring about something positive for all players: changes in refereeing because of the amount of discussion on soccer sites, in newspapers, on television, and on the radio, that this much-publicised incident has engendered.  What do I mean by something positive....?

    The commentaries I read ranged from surprise that Taylor was sent off, to suggestions that he should be banned for as long as Eduardo is unable to play.  Wenger, Arsenal's manager initially declared that Taylor should be banned for life, but after his passion had subsided and the rational man returned, he did admit his first comments were a bit over-the-top.  Taylor's manager (Alex McLeish) was surprised because he thought that the tackle, though mistimed, was normal for that level of play; the injury was an unfortunate accident of timing and turf, as I described a couple of days ago.  In an interview on Feb. 25, he hasn't changed that opinion.  In fact I was sickened by the focus of his concern; it was less for Eduardo in hospital than for Taylor and whether he could recover psychologically.

    Back to the law.  The key part of Law 12 is the decision number 4 of the International F. A. Board: a tackle that "...endangers the safety of an opponent, must be sanctioned as serious foul play."  The wording represents the evolution of ideas to eliminate foul tackling from behind.  Starting in the early nineties, the FTFB was banned, but not any tackle from behind.  Then players, and coaches said: "Hey, a bad tackle from the side is just as bad, as is one from the front!"  They were not arguing for the elimination of tackles per se, but foul tackles from any direction.  Hence the IBD as it stands.  But here's the point.

    Many of the commentators, including former professional and international players, are apparently unaware of the newer wording, and in some discussion groups and responses to blogs other observers still refer to the banning of "tackles from behind".  That was never the intent, and is not to this day.  The IBD #4 succinctly describes the purpose and the punishment for proscribing certain challenges.  Play the man before the ball, it's a foul.  Play the man and ball together, then it could be called as a foul, and if there's a danger to safety, it's a foul and more.  Miss the ball and play the man (Taylor on Eduardo), and it's an expulsion.  The responsibility always rest upon the challenger to play the ball without endangering the opponent.  And that is what many commentators missed.

    And I understand why.  Few fans and ex-players are fastidious students of the laws and recent changes therein, and the players are surely reluctant to believe that the way they played was illegal and not simply "part of the game".  Could McLeish admit (see the link above) that the way he played for all the years was essentially unfair and illegal?  And would he admit that hammering a skillful opponent early in the game was an acceptable method of neutralizing him?

    The pernicious idea that the referee should not insert himself upon a game for fear of being accused of determining the result is one reason for the players' employment of bullying tactics.  If referees had more understanding and courage, these early challenges and systematic destruction of skilled players would slowly disappear. 

    My thanks to D. Sivakumar for leading me to the discussion about the hammering that Kaka is getting in Serie A in Italy.   Note the difference, though, between this challenge and the one on Eduardo da Silva last week.  Does it endanger Kaka?  Without seeing more it is hard to say, but there are no studs up at the end of a straight leg; an altogether more benign (though unfair) challenge than the one that put Arsenal's star in hospital, under the knife, and in a cast.

    My bottom line?  The tools are there for referees to control this sort of thing, but will they do it?  If they are not forced to, probably not.  And we have just put a referee on the FIFA list, even though he did not take the right action when confronted with fouls from behind and two-footed, studs first fouls in an MLS playoff game.  Effectively, he has been rewarded for not protecting players.

    Pat Smith wrote to me recently stating his opinion that we don't have enough people who can tell whether referees are ready for professional and international soccer.  Perhaps now that Brian Hall is going to be working for the federation in Chicago, that may change.  For the sake of all players, let's hope so.

 

   

Comments

[John P.]

"The responsibility always rest upon the challenger to play the ball without endangering the opponent."

Unfortunately, this may be the most well kept secret in the world. This concept is foreign to the vast majority of players, spectators, coaches (and perhaps some referees).

[Joe West]

What is Brian Hall's new position with USSF? and as of when?

[Joe West]

Going back to your post about the MLS final and USSF releasing a memo regarding the butt (I couldn't find the original post to reply) I found something interesting.
It seems the Mexican Soccer Federation (FMF) has begun posting referee decision clips on their web site. If you go to www.femexfut.org.mx, and scroll down until you see "Videos Arbitrales - Jornada 7", you can click on the orange subtitles to view video clips.
I know most of you don't read Spanish, but I think the videos show clearly enough what is going on, what with the replays and highlighting of key point. =]

Not only do they show clips where referees made right decisions, but they also show referees who make wrong decisions. They even go as far as to post the name of the referee who made the call.

Hmmmm, is this something USSF can learn from?

[pat Smith]

In 1978 the late Harry Baldwin, Roger Schott, and i went to Mexico City to attend a Seminar.THey had a ruling at that time, at least in Mexico City, that after every game on a Sunday, the game report had to be returned in person,to the local Association office.By the referee of that particular game. I wonder what the reaction would be to a ruling like that here in the U.S.A.

[Nutmegger]

USSF does have some position papers with supporting video evidence from MLS games, posted on the USSF website. These deal mainly with VC toward the referee, offside and FRD - and in some cases show referees getting it wrong. I hope they show more...

[Joe West]

Here is another fun video.
I hope Mr. Evans gets a chance to review it.
http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/03/03/chinese-footballers-still-holding-that-grudge-about-nanking/