The other day I published this photograph of Theo Walcott being fouled in the game against Stoke in the Premiership. I pulled it from an English site that left me with the impression that this challenge was the incident that caused Walcott’s shoulder injury and his having to be carried off for treatment. I now know, thanks to an observant and thoughtful reader, that the foul shown was not the one that injured Walcott. I had repeated the error made by my source. The speed and self-correction mechanism of the internet—as my wife and Internet Maven keeps on reminding me—allow me to put things right.
I’m going to set the record straight with the URL of a video clip of the injurious late tackle, but first comment on other items in the email of “HJ”. His complete text is in italics, my responses in red:
Occasionally, assessors construct their (otherwise well-intentioned) feedback by asserting as fact things that are simply not there. This post is an excellent example. The tackle shown above may or may not have been a foul, but the assertion that the photograph is "clear" in showing it as such is arrant nonsense.
I agree that many assessors—from too far away--second-guess the referee’s interpretations of incidents, which is why I recommend as a feedback technique, the interrogative or “Socratic” approach to the discussion after the game. “What did you see?” is more instructive than “You got that call wrong”, and I like to think that when assessing, I am still a referee; a colleague, not a carper.
As for the “arrant nonsense”, I’ll let the reader decide after I give my explanation for concluding that the challenge in the photograph is indeed a foul.
For one thing, it is practically impossible to tell the exact distance between Walcott's planted right leg and Delap's outstretched left due to the compression that occurs when using a long lens (this was likely taken with a 400mm telephoto or longer). The players' legs could easily be anywhere from one inch to several feet apart. It therefore follows that concluding the Stoke player is about to clatter his legs into his opponent is completely speculative.
Not so! A consideration of “perspective” in the photograph makes it clear. Notice the line of the grass and hoardings, the line on the pitch behind the players, and then imagine a line between the point-of-contact (with the ground) of Walcott’s right foot and Delap’s right foot. The three lines are virtually parallel with each other and with the edge of the photograph, which means that the camera’s view is at right-angles to them. It means also that Delap’s left leg is only inches away from Walcott’s right, and that with forward motion of both players, Delap is indeed going to clatter Walcott.
The photo likewise provides no credible support to the assertion that the challenge has arrived after the ball has been knocked away; if anything, it appears in this particular photo that Delap got to the ball first and played it away cleanly.
This time, consider perspective and dimensions. You can tell that the ball is nearer to the camera than is Delap’s left foot, because of its size in the picture. The diameter of a soccer ball is less than nine inches, and in the photograph Delap’s left foot is as long as the diameter: nine inches. Yet Delap is a big lad: six feet tall and 164 pounds, and I will bet that his foot is bigger than nine inches. That means that his foot is further away from the camera than the ball is, and ergo, the tackle was late and foul.
Further, if we are to believe that this photograph shows evidence of a boot raised too high to be safe, then we should suspend all matches worldwide with immediate effect. Peruse the photos from any professional game and you will find dozens of images like this, not one depicting an actual foul, in addition to the images that do show the fouls.
I won’t disagree with anything in these two sentences, but HJ is challenging something I didn’t write! My words: “His foot is above the height necessary to make contact with the ball.” I stand by that, and looking at the dimensions of everything involved in this tackle, Delap’s foot is just below the level of Walcott’s knee. “Thou shalt not pass” rings in my mind . . .
Finally, and most directly relevant to the discussion at hand, this photo is not from the challenge in which Walcott injured his shoulder. As can be seen from the video, [http://crazymotion.net/delap-tackle-on-walcott/wxiW8TMkSBY4jAy.html] Delap comes from Walcott's right on the tackle in question, but the photo above shows him coming from the left. The point of all this is not to say that the challenge was clean (it wasn't, and was immediately and properly sanctioned by the referee).
I agree, and am most grateful to HJ for writing to tell me about my error, and thereby giving me the opportunity to include the video of another late tackle on Walcott in the Arsenal/Stoke contest. Perhaps Wenger was right in his assertion that Stoke players were out to get Walcott . . .
Rather, we need to work harder – much harder – at being objective in our discussions. In this case, we should be talking about what we actually see, not what we wish to see.
I can’t fault that as a philosophy, which is one reason I stick my neck out on this site.
Comments