Predictability in soccer.

    One of the ideas I have been trying to impress upon referees in northern California is that soccer——especially professional soccer——can have predictable elements to it.  In one presentation and discussion, I used the example of the terrible foul committed on Arsenal’s daSilva a few months ago, when his leg was broken by ever-such-a-nice-lad (a “gentle giant”, even!) in the third or fourth minute of the game.  The referee, quite rightly, sent the opponent Taylor off, and I encouraged our referees to be just as tough on any foul challenge of that severity.  But not everyone in the game agreed . . .

    Last week we saw another example of predictability, this one involving a young international star (19 years of age) playing in a Champions’ League match.  Days before, Theo Walcott had scored three goals for England against Croatia in  a World Cup qualifier, and you can guess what’s coming, or at least I hope so . . .

    Starting on the right wing, Walcott ran at the captain of Dynamo Kyiv (Kiev), who did not have enough speed to stay with his opponent, and, we must understand, would have been aware of the outstanding performance by the young player in the international match in Zagreb.  So what does a defender do?  All commentators will say that the defender has no choice: he has to stop his opponent by fair means or foul, starting as soon as possible after the kick.  But that’s where the referee comes in . . .

    Here’s one of the fouls Walcott suffered.   According to one observer, Walcott was “tackled” nine times in the match, and on five of those occasions, it was a foul.  Arsene Wenger, the Arsenal boss declared: "We feel we have lost two points but the referee should have sent the left-back off three times because he tried to destroy Walcott."  Any referee should have known (predicted) that this was going to happen, and should have been prepared to put a stop to it, for the good of the game, and for the protection of Walcott’s legs.  Walcott, incidentally, was the most-fouled Arsenal player in the match.  That tell you something?

    The referee finally did something in the 57th minute: a caution for persistent infringement.   If you look at the photograph of one of the “tackles”, you can see that if that was one that occurred before the caution, this too, should have been a caution.  The defender arrives late, after the ball was away, and takes out his opponent.  No playing the ball, no excuse for arriving late, and forget about persistent infringement.  The challenge alone is a violation that deserves punishment more severe than a mere free kick.  Walcott’s expression tells us a lot!

    The report in the Guardian is clear: "It was from Walcott's cross in the 88th minute that William Gallas, the captain, swept home Arsenal's equaliser. It felt priceless at the time and it provided a soothing balm for Walcott, who had suffered at the hands of Andriy Nesmachniy, the Dynamo left-back and captain. Walcott needed lengthy treatment at the beginning of the second half after being clipped painfully while Nesmachniy clattered his way into the referee's notebook for persistent fouling," or as the reporter said: " . . .battering another bit of vitality out of Theo Walcott."

    And if you need any further convincing, here’s what Charlie Nicholas had to say.  He was a former Scottish international who played for Celtic and then Arsenal, and himself took a little battering in his career. "It's reality-time for Theo after his glorious performance for England in Croatia; he's such a talent and the top players in the world are targets . . .There were quite crude challenges on him but because he's a winger who likes to take people on . . .Some of the challenges were over the top but it's all part of Theo's education."

    Referees need education, too.  Education that will give them the courage to put a stop, and early, to this kind of predictable and cynical fouling.

   

Comments

[GBL]

Glad you are back in the saddle.

[D.S.]

On a related note, what was your reaction to John Terry's being sent off after a cynical foul, and subsequently getting his suspension lifted? It was as cynical a challenge as they come, but he seems to have gotten off on technicalities ("wasn't the last defender, so DOGSO doesn't apply" and "the foul itself wasn't SFP so straight send off wasn't warranted"). The Guardian article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2008/sep/21/tottenhamhotspur.chelsea (second half) wonders about the same issue. When does a cynical late challenge become "serious foul play"?

[Ruben Faria]

RIGHT ON.....
I allways have believed that an early card (yellow or red) will save a lot of them later on...

[alex]

I think it is important for referees to quickly understand where fouls are going to occur. Somedays you know early who is going to be your main fouler. Other days you know who is going to be fouled. Protect your players that tend to be fouled.

great write up. I love you insight you share with us.