For the Integrity of Soccer

Lest we forget . . .

One year ago, Eduardo Da Silva suffered an awful injury while playing in the Premiership.  Thanks to good medical care, surgery and physical therapy, he's on the field again and scoring goals, two in his first league match back in Arsenal colors.  You'd think that after all the publicity, all the (feigned, in my opinion) remorse by the player who set upon him, defenders would stop making that kind of cynical challenge in the name of competition.  But no!  Just last weekend we saw a tackle worse than the one by Taylor on Eduardo.  Take a look . . .

Let's dispose of a couple of myths . . .

In the discussion recently about the dispute between a referee and the AR who felt unsupported, I suggested that if the referee had recognized that the field was not rectangular, and had refused to play until it was fixed, there would not have been the later problem between the two officials.  But then one reader wondered "... how you could tell whether or not a field is rectangular.  It's simply too big for a human without measuring equipment to accurately judge."  I'm pleased to say that is a myth.

I can't miss the chance of passing on some useful information I picked up somewhere in the decades I've been doing this refereeing business, so here it is.  One line of sight from the goal-line will tell you whether you have a major problem with the pitch.  Take a look at this diagram . . .

The value of doing things right . . .

Brian Hall was in northern California over the weekend, giving an audience of senior referees, some assessors and instructors and other interested parties a review of what our national referee program is going to emphasize in the preparation of officials at all levels of the game.  It's an ambitious plan, and years overdue, but definitely good for the game.  One little phrase stuck with me, after I first heard it last October when he came through, and heard it repeated a few days ago.  It was: "The importance of doing things right," in accordance with the laws, and in accordance with the spirit of the game.

Doing it right is what I have believed in for many years, and when I think about the distressing incident between a referee and AR in a local match not too long ago, the whole problem could have been avoided if things had been done right.

More from the Department of Good News . . .

Eduardo Da Silva made his return to top-flight competitive football when he played for Croatia recently, but he made his return to Arsenal's side when he was named at the last minute as a starter in the F.A. Cup match against Cardiff.  The late announcement by Arsene Wenger was intended to keep Eduardo from getting too tensed-up before the kick-off, and it worked.

Protect the AR, protect the game, and protect its laws.

Some aspects of officiating are pretty straightforward.  So straightforward that you hear them spoken about in almost every meeting of referees, you hear them in lectures, in discussions, in focus groups, almost everywhere that officials gather.  They are so widespread that they become holy songs from the mouths and into the ears of congregants.  But like congregants, referees may mouth the words, but then don't do the deeds.  Why?  I don't know.  Maybe it's because they haven't all developed the sang-froid I wrote about yesterday.  Here's an example from an amateur game played recently in northern California.

Referees need sang-froid, but how do they get it ?

On February 6th, I wrote about the incident near a corner-flag at Anfield in the match between Liverpool and Chelsea, and asked the question: "Why did two officials make such a mess of what should have been a straightforward decision?"

I answered it with the comment that in my experience, "...I think it all comes down to an official being aware of the negative consequences of a tough decision, and yet, notwithstanding that, having the strength to do what is right: "Damn the torpedoes; full steam ahead!"  Another way to describe it is to say that the individual is cold-blooded, or as the French say, has sang-froid.

The question for us all, however, is: How do you get it?  I know when I got mine, and how I got it.  It was after an event in my life that I will never forget, that affected my entire family for ever afterwards.  Sang-froid on the soccer field was a minor consequence in the grand scheme of things, but I'm glad I found it.  It made my last ten years of refereeing more satisfying than it had ever been.

From: The Department of Good News

Almost a year ago, I wrote about the terrible injury suffered by the Arsenal player Eduardo daSilva, and mentioned the prospect that he might never play again, not for Arsenal, not for his country Croatia.  Well, he has been training for some time, been on the bench at Arsenal, and on Wednesday he will play for his national team in a match against Romania.  Now, that is good news!

Dissecting a poor bugger who refereed . . . for what purpose?

    During the last few days I spent some hours dissecting three incidents from Liverpool v. Chelsea at Anfield last week in the Premiership (and I haven't finished yet), and concluded that in all three decisions, the referee was wrong.  He was soft on Gerrard, over-the-top on Lampard, and he and his AR were figuratively in the dressing-room when they had to make a decision on the worst foul of the lot, the Kung Fu nephrectomy by Bosingwa at the corner flag.

    As you know I am critical of poor refereeing and more critical of poor administration of refereeing, but at the same time I am sympathetic to the lot of individuals out on the park.  After all, I've been there for under-sixes and for internationals.  So the commentator George P. was right to wonder why I sometimes go into great detail in examining incidents.  With a nod to George I feel obliged to explain myself, and please note that although I am opinionated, I don't for a moment believe that I am the only one with the correct view of things on the field--which is why I repeatedly use the phrases "in my opinion..." or "it has been my experience that..." etc.

Kung Fu at the corner-flag: What's a referee to do?

In the final minutes of the match between Liverpool and Chelsea, and at the Kop end of the stadium, a bizarre incident occurred unlike any I have ever seen.  (The Kop end is the home of the most fanatical of Liverpool supporters; not the best place to do something stupid if you are a visiting player.)  On the video, it occurs between 4:30 and 4:10.

 

[The illustrations above are the mythical Lyverbird, the symbol of Liverpool, and the original symbol for Chelsea F.C., a Chelsea Pensioner.]

Approaching added time, with Liverpool leading 1-0, there was a tussle for the ball in the right corner, Yossi Benayoun of Liverpool shielding the ball, trying to keep it in play but unplayable by Chelsea, all the while holding the corner-flag.  This so offended Jose Bosingwa of Chelsea that he approached from

behind,
placed his studs in the small of Benayoun's back, then shoved him and the flag to the ground, after which he ran off.

What is remarkable, amazing even, is that this occurred under the nose of the assistant referee, a mere six feet away!  He snapped his flag upright, gave it a rapid wave.  Was it for a foul, or for the ball going out of play?  Whatever the AR called, and despite the severity of what he surely must have seen, he did not convey any useful information to Mike Riley for him to take the disciplinary action that was deserved.  Riley himself might not have seen Bosingwa using his studs in an attempted nephrectomy on Benayoun, because he had the wrong angle of view, and might have thought it was no more than a charge in the back.  Now take a look at this photograph from the MailOnline:
Matadar seems fixed on the ball--so fixed that the actual contact between studs and kidney may have been outside his upward peripheral vision.  He did admit to the F.A., however, that he had seen the kick, which means that in his opinion (in the judgment . . .), no further action was necessary.  He may have interpreted Riley's calming words and gestures as meaning "It's OK, I've got it", or "No, no, it's allright" (i.e. "I've seen it".)  Hence the F.A. could not take any further action.  The disciplinary commission, however, was not pleased, and they demoted Matadar out of the Premiership for at least a week.

Everyone knows that this was a wrong judgment, but what is more important than that mere fact, is Why?  Why did two officials make such a mess of what should have been a straightforward decision?

Writing now of my own experience, I think it all comes down to an official being aware of the negative consequences of a tough decision, and yet, notwithstanding that, having the strength to do what is right: "Damn the torpedoes; full steam ahead!"  Here's what I mean . . .

In one of the biggest games of the Premiership season, the home team is one-up with only minutes to play.  The referee has already sent off one of the visitors, and he and his assistant are facing a second expulsion, which they know will end the contest for certain.  But with only a short time left, they know they can probably ride out the inevitable "Sturm und Drang" from Liverpool without being accused of favoring the home team.

What is best for the assistant referee?  To say he didn't see it, or to say he made an error in not pushing the issue with the referee?  Obviously the latter: better to seem shaky than sightless.  And for the referee?  If he was unaware of the studs to the spine, he can be grateful the assistant didn't push the issue and force him to send off a second player.  That way he will still be able to referee Chelsea again.

All this, of course, is subconscious awareness, not deliberate action.  Few officials intentionally cheat, but decisions from the knowledgeable but unwitting part of the brain often overwhelm those from the conscious and coldly rational part.  But when the conscious and coldly rational come to the fore, no matter what the circumstances, then the game really has a referee!

Lampard, Alonso and Riley: another angle of view.

One of the great things--perhaps the greatest thing--about the internet as a news medium, is that its speed allows for rapid correction delivered by a huge audience.  The Obama campaign and its "Fight the Smears" site is a political example of how rapid response can dilute the effect of, well, smears and lies masquerading as facts and news. He didn't have a U.S. birth certificate?  No sooner was the accusation made, than the certificate was posted for all to see.  And there were many other corrections made to expose the liars for what they were.

Before seven this morning, fewer than ten hours after I posted my analysis of the second of the three controversial incidents in the Liverpool/Chelsea match of last weekend, I open my computer and see the internet self-correcting mechanism at work.  From Dennis Wickham, a thoughtful and occasional contributor to this site comes the URL to MailOnline which has a great shot of Lampard's challenge on Alonso (not to mention Dennis's shrewd suggestion to "Consider this angle of view".)  As a result I need to change a couple of things I wrote in the article yesterday (which I will amend).  Look at this photo: