Keep the red card flying here . . .

    Neither newspapers nor pundits missed the opportunity to comment on a recent incident from the Manchester City/Chelsea game in the Premiership, when John Terry, the England captain, was sent off by Mark Halsey for serious foul play in the 66th minute.  To put it simply, Terry was going to chase (and probably never catch) Jo of City just inside the Chelsea half.  Rather than do that, the Chelsea center-back reached out and with his right arm pulled his opponent down in a tackle that would have done many a rugby player proud, and was certainly better and more effective than a lot of so-called tackles in the NFL.
    There was a bit of a fuss at the time, because the players knew that the expulsion meant that Terry would be suspended for the next game, against Manchester United no less.  Understandably enough, Chelsea appealed——against any suspension——to the F.A., on the basis of wrongful dismissal, and then all the pundits, all the commentators that I could find scribbled their opinions on the basis of wrongful information. It was quite a comedy of errors…

    At first, they commented that it wasn’t a DOGSO, because two other defenders were in the vicinity.  “Terry wasn’t the last man” was the phrase they used.  Error number one, because Terry was not sent off for denying an obvious goal-scoring opportunity, and in any case, the “last man” theory does not always apply.

    Then they found out that the player had been sent off for “serious foul play”, not for DOGSO.  So they commented that it wasn’t a bad tackle, one that might injure the opponent.  How could that be an expulsion?  (As though there is no other kind of serious foul play——see below.)  Error number two.

    Opinion was about equally divided between two camps: one that thought the suspension should stand, because the referees need to be supported (the F.A. had recently started a “Respect” campaign nationwide); and the other that said the referee had made a mistake and that Terry had been punished unfairly.

    Then the decision was announced, and Terry did not have to serve any suspension, because (the Disciplinary Commission said) the foul he committed did not meet the criteria for “serious foul play”.  Error number three, perpetrated by the F.A. itself.

    After that, the commentators weighed in once more, and some even suggested that the F.A. was favoring Chelsea over Manchester United in the next match.  The referee Mark Halsey was pilloried in the best British fashion, sent down to referee in a much lower division, and Alex Ferguson sounded off (again) that the F.A. was biased against Manchester United.  Yawn . . .

    The get the details of how these decisions are made, read this article from The Times.  But there’s even more to it than that, and the way the decision is made highlights a need to have a referee or an expert on the laws sitting on the disciplinary panel as an adviser.  Here’s why . . .

    In the laws of the game, there is no definition of serious foul play (SFP).  FIFA has published ONE description of SFP, but only to differentiate it from violent conduct (VC).  For example, a player swings an elbow at an opponent, and the referee decides to send him off.  Is that a foul or is it violence?  How do you write it up so that a disciplinary board knows what punishment to mete out?  That one definition does not include every incident which a referee may punish as SFP, and therein lies the problem.

    Historically, before the laws were modified to include DOGSO, some referees independently took the high road and would punish players with a red card for committing a handball to stop a goal, or for bringing down a player who had broken through.  Those pioneers were responsible for the eventual change in the laws, when the rest of the sport realized how good for the game such decisions were.
In my opinion, a rugby tackle in a game of soccer is serious foul play.  It violates every tenet of fair play that has been in this game since the laws of rugby and the laws of soccer separated the two sports in 1863.  Mark Halsey was right, and the F.A. was wrong not to support him.  A knowledgeable referee advising the disciplinary commission would have prevented this injustice, which tells everyone in the sport that a rugby tackle that is not a DOGSO is now OK.  And THAT is good for no one.

Comments

[CSR]

I also think this begs the question - would the FA have reached the same decision/conclusion if the sent-off player had been merely a journeyman instead of "England captain John Terry" (or some other star player)?

[Ferenc Korompai]

A cca. 1970's cartoon-embellished soccer Laws quiz book shows a rugby style tackle as an example of SFP.

[JohnM]

That tackle certainly isn't your normal SFP,the kind we see in training clips. BUT can you imagine what our beautiful game would become if "only" yellows were given for such stupid actions!!! You're right on this one. That committee needs a good referee on it.

[Dustin Edwards]

I understand what you're saying and I absolutely agree with you. However, if referees who take a stand are just going to be punished for doing so, why should we take a stand at all? We're hired to referee games by employers and if they're not happy with our performance we're fired. Standing on principle I absolutely hold in highest regard, but when it comes to having no paycheck, is there really a choice here? This is why I don't bother trying to move up in the refereeing world. I'm young, in shape and have been reffing for a very long time and love it. Whenever I have moved up I am told the "Right Way" of refereeing and to follow it without question or I will be dismissed. This of course is more or less implied. It seems to me that we are fighting a system that doesn't want us nor does it deserve us, referees of integrity that is. So, what do you have to say to those referees who see stories like this? Stand on principle against popular opinion and get thrown to the wolves. I will continue to referee the game from my studied and experienced whistle. I just won't be bothered to take a leap up to higher refereeing because I simply have no time to listen to indoctrination by idiots.

[K. Teague]

Oh, so true your breakdown is! A rugby-type tackle has no place in soccer. Anything short of a red card (i.e. "excessive") just announces the play as plausible to the players (i.e. "reckless" yellow card) if done "less-recklessly". Referees need more backing by said authorities who delegeate the authority originally to the refreees to manage the game. How dare they say, "Here the assignment we believe you are worthy of. Then when the heat is on to back that person of delegated authority with their set authority, a "chickening out" occurs -- leaving the referee out to dry. Utterly rediculous and shameful.

[John B]

Hail to Mr. Halsey for doing the "right" thing. Administrators must administrate and referees must still referee. I respect the jobs of both. It is most certain that after much review Mr. Halsey will be back to doing higher levels. Now days its seems that courage is the best trait for a referee to have.