|
Page updated Wednesday 10th March 2010 |
|
Top referee believes diving is related to professional ethics By Rory Smith The Daily Telegraph Wednesday 11th November 2009
REFEREES supremo Keith Hackett has insisted it is players' ethics, rather than officiating standards, which must be improved if diving is to be stamped out in football in light of the David Ngog controversy. The Liverpool striker's blatant act of simulation, leaping over the outstretched leg of Lee Carsley to hoodwink referee Peter Walton into handing Rafael Benitez's side a penalty, was described by Carsley and his manager, Alex McLeish, as "embarrassing" and "a joke". That Walton, 50, did not spot Ngog's deception has raised questions over whether video technology or an extra pair of assistant referees, as has been implemented in the Europa League with some success, should be introduced to improve refereeing standards, but Hackett believes it is the players who must take responsibility for their actions. "Ultimately it is down to players not to commit acts of simulation," said Hackett, the general manager of the Professional Game Match Officials board (PGMO). "Nobody in the game supports the act of simulation and that is true of managers and all the organisations, such as the League Managers Association. "The managers are working very hard to cut out this behaviour and I know from speaking to them that they abhor it. However, these acts do take place because players do go down and that puts pressure on referees. "It is difficult and sometimes the speed and quality of the player and the way they can juggle the ball does catch referees out. I have said to managers that this is an area of great difficulty for referees and it can come down to the viewing angle. It's easy for the media and fans, who have the benefit of replays and different viewing angles to see whether or not that it was a dive. Referees don't have that and have to make a decision on the spot." Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers' Association, suggested it would be "naive" to believe players would not "try to take short cuts or gain an advantage" but expressed sympathy with the plight of referees in the modern game. "Football is a major spectator and participant sport and you don't want to encourage any feigning contact or feigning injury," he said. "But sometimes you need to be in the hearts and minds of the players and ask what was the particular challenge, did it cause him to lose balance, did he need to go down, or was it exaggerated? This is a job again for the referee and who'd be a referee in this day and age?" McLeish admitted that, while "there was no real debate about whether it was a penalty, there was no contact," such errors are part of football, an attitude lauded by Hackett as "magnanimous". Benitez, too, revealed he had spoken to Ngog and the striker, who had opened the scoring for Liverpool, had confessed~ehad doubts. Such honesty, though, will do little to stem the growing tide of criticism directed at the Premier League's officials. Sir Alex Ferguson, Benitez and Sam Allardyce have drawn attention to the perceived dwindling standard of referees' fitness, aptitude and decision-making. Hackett, a staunch defender of his colleagues, admitted he would meet Walton to discuss the incident.
Send-offs on the slide as players follow rules
By John Ley The Daily Telegraph Wednesday 30th September 2009
THE goal count is up, drawn matches are down and now, most importantly, red cards are on the decrease. The Premier League has rarely appeared as healthy as it is today. So far this season there have been 196 goals - an average of almost three a game - while only four of the 66 games have been drawn, fewer than the five in last weekend's Serie A games. Significantly, there have been just four red cards, while at this stage of the campaign last season 10 players had seen red in the Premier League John Terry's dismissal was later rescinded. There is a theory that all three aspects have come together this season to produce a thrilling start. A combination of the Football Association's Respect campaign, the Premier League's ‘Get on with the Game’ initiative and an acceptance by all parties to endorse improved attitudes is having a positive affect. The early signs of an improvement came last season when there were 63 red cards in the Premier League, compared with 116 in Italy and 148 in Spain. And, in 2008-09, the average number of free-kicks awarded in England's top tier was 24, well down on the average of 45 a game in both Italy and Spain. At the start of the present campaign every club was sent four DVDs: offside, denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity, handball and foul recognition. Each contains 20 examples with Mike Riley, who takes over from Keith Hackett later this season as the referees' chief, explaining all the vagaries of the law. The penny is beginning to drop. The Premier League's Get on with the Game initiative followed on from the Respect campaign and is aimed at "eradicating unacceptable behaviour in the game and, more specifically, behaviour towards match officials". The programme includes players, managers and chairmen signing up to charters each season, detailing standards of acceptable behaviour. As well as this, captains and managers meet officials in advance of matches and captains have been given enhanced responsibilities in respect to their relationship with referees and managing their team-mates. Roy Hodgson, the Fulham manager, said: "I think we are trying. Sendings-off are necessary because if people commit bad fouls and do things they have to be sent off, but it's not something you look forward to happening when you go to a game because you want to see 11 against 11, you don't want to see 11 against 10." Indeed, the game's hierarchy has noticed fewer heated exchanges between players and officials, while there has been a decline in the number of aggressive, two-footed challenges. Referee Martin Atkinson observed: "Of course not every tackle will be perfectly timed and there are still going to be fouls committed. So we've still had to caution players, but we've had a much better reaction from them. "In the vast majority of cases, players have accepted our decisions and acted professionally."
THE MANAGER ROY HODGSON (Fulham)
''I'd like to think the League's getting fairer, I'd like to think the Respect campaign is working. I'd like to think that people are playing the game at a very intense and fiercely competitive level, but that they're trying to do it as fairly as possible. And the referees, undoubtedly, are trying their best to keep games going and to not spoil games, I suppose, by having to send people off."
THE PLAYER STEVAN GERRARD (Liverpool)
"I think going in and speaking to the referees and seeing what they want from the players and how they expect them to behave means me as captain can go back into the dressing room and share that with the players. I think the standard of refereeing has improved and the relationship with the players has improved. I think we're all after common sense and it's important that we do get on with the game."
THE REFEREE MARTIN ATKINSON (Yorkshire)
"The 'Get on with the Game' initiative meant that we knew we had the support and the backing of the Premier League to discipline players who don't behave well. Overall, it has helped us a lot in managing the game, but also the players know what's expected of them now. The captains, in particular, have been fantastic and it has really helped to meet with them before the game."
Uefa caves in and the game takes another step to the dark side Henry Winter The Daily Telegraph Monday 14th September 2009
A CHUNKY magnet has just been placed alongside football's moral compass. So remember the date with anger. Sept 14, 2009, will go down in footballing history as a dark day in the battle against the dark arts. Uefa's decision to scrap the two-match ban it imposed on Eduardo for allegedly diving against Celtic is both ludicrous and damaging, making a mockery of Michel Platini's initial, commendably strong stance. The Football Association's hesitation over punishing Emmanue Adebayor further frustrates those hoping the authorities are going to tackle player excess. The game's sheriffs might as well hand in their badges after yesterday. The FA will doubtless get round to charging the Manchester City striker with violent conduct today, setting in train a "fast-track" disciplinary process that leads to a three-game ban for allegedly raking Eduardo's Arsenal team-mate Robin van Persie. Following his score-settling antics on Saturday, Adebayor also faces a further game in purdah for inciting Arsenal fans. Fairly straightforward, the straight-thinking majority would suggest. Think again. Uefa's astonishing U-turn on Eduardo has changed the landscape, making governing the wild west town of football far more difficult. Yesterday was a doubly good day for Adebayor. Not only did the FA's law enforcers delay taking action against him, dithering that will surely be seized on by his lawyers, but Uefa's voite face over Eduardo offers him a potential reprieve. Whisper it along the Holloway Road but Arsenal have done Adebayor a favour. A figure loathed by many within the Emirates home dressing room and by even more on the terraces, Adebayor will probably appeal against any FA punishment. City's talented legal and PR staff will swarm all over the paperwork and procedure. Arsenal's certainly did. Celtic will feel second-class citizens of Uefa's world, that there is one rule for those who qualify for the Champions League and another for those who fail to make the VIP party beginning this evening. Uefa is effectively accusing Celtic of exaggerating their reaction to Eduardo's fall to earth. Unfair. Having been at the Emirates, having seen the way Artur Bornc pulled out from his challenge, having seen how the Arsenal forward hurtled downwards, put me in Glasgow's corner, not London's. Even Arsene Wenger clearly had doubts about the legitimacy of his No 9's collapse, intimating as much during his post-match press conference. Wenger then changed his tune, passionately backing his striker. Fair enough. That's his job as Arsenal manager, to see only good in his players. Eduardo is undoubtedly a likeable, decent man, devoid of much of the ego that can stain the millionaire modern professional. Standing next to the Croatian international at a Heathrow carousel following a flight from Zagreb, it was impossible not to admire the unfussy way he juggled family and baggage. Arsenal always talk highly of Eduardo, always insist he would never dive, yet it will take more than Wenger's character references and Uefa's wavering to rinse away the sour taste. The Eduardo fiasco, and the FA delay over Adebayor, underline one reality: the need for proper disciplinary juries sitting in retrospective judgment on such games. The FA must consider the permanent establishment of a video-review panel, involving those who have served with distinction as player, manager or referee, individuals such as Gary Mabbutt, Steve Coppell and David Elleray, to deliberate on controversial incidents: The Premier League yesterday said it would welcome this. A similar panel should convene in Nyon to assess European games. At least the miscreants would know they were being watched.
Mawhinney calls for law and order
Football League chairman demands referees clamp down on player indiscipline Henry Winter The Daily Telegraph 18th September 2009
LORD MAWHINNEY, the chairman of the Football League, has called on referees to clamp down on indiscipline, dismissing petulant, dirty players and reducing games to "seven v seven" if necessary to produce a "far better spectacle" in the long term. Mawhinney's comments come in the wake of Emmanuel Adebayor's goading of Arsenal supporters and his raking of Robin van Persie, an offence that brought the Manchester City striker a three-game ban yesterday. "Player behaviour is better in the Football League than in the Premier but everybody's behaviour would be improved if the referees applied the rule-book rigorously," Mawhinney said yesterday. "A referee said to me, 'But Brian, if I did that, I'd do nothing but hand out yellow cards.' Absolutely right. I am conscious that people will say 'Mawhinney used to be a Conservative minister, he has a bit of a law and order streak about him' but it needs to be done. There would be three or four weeks of mayhem, yellow cards and seven v seven, after which the penny would drop for players and managers, they would play it by the rules, we'd get back to 11 v 11 and the game would change inexorably for the better. It would be a far better spectacle. "There would be far less petulance, snarling and, the one that really bugs me, not retreating 10 yards at a free kick. You almost get the impression it is practised on the training ground. And commentators look at a bad foul and say 'but he got the ball', it was 'a superabundance of.enthusiasm'. Excuse me! It was a bad foul.". Adebayor's behaviour clearly enervated Mawhinney. "What's that all about? I heard a commentator say, 'It's all about passion, do we want a game without passion?' Passion is great but that [Adebayor's behaviour} is not passion. "People try to get away with what they can and that includes managers. When you see interviews with managers after the game it's all about what the referee did or didn't do. Think how refreshing it would be if the manager said, 'Do you know what the problem was? My players weren't able to hold on to the ball and my top striker missed several chances'."
Graham Poll writes on ‘Diving’ The Daily Mail, Tuesday 1st September 2009
IT WAS on the eve of the Barclays Premier League season that. Sir Alex Ferguson spoke with authority and insight. 'Players who cheat are killing the game. It's not the referees,' observed the manager of the champions. How right and prophetic those words have turned out to be. We've played only four rounds of fixtures and there is an avalanche of players cheating. The problem when the prize is so great is that the desire to succeed is breeding a win-at-all-costs mentality and it is no good blaming referees for not detecting highly-skilled professionals who are completely at ease when cheating to win. There is a clear issue that has been present for many years but never so prevalent as now. It cannot be resolved until all involved accept there is a problem and agree to work together to improve the game. Just look at Arsene Wenger's reaction when referring to Eduardo's dive to win a penalty against Celtic last week. 'He's not a diver; he was just getting out of the way of the keeper.' Now look at the comment of Celtic boss Tony Mowbray after the dismissal of Aiden McGeady for his second caution on Sunday. McGeady simulated a foul when it was clear there was no contact between the players, Mowbray said: 'He didn't dive, never in a million years.' Replays are conclusively showing clear acts of simulation in both incidents - and they are not isolated. In the two live games on Saturday I saw Michael Ballack dive to win a free-kick just 20 yards out in Chelsea's game against Burnley and, of course, Emmanuel Eboue's pathetic attempt to deceive Mike Dean in the 70th minute of Arsenal's defeat at Old Trafford. Of these four incidents, referees detected only two dives and issued cautions. That is down to viewing angle which, if officials get it right, makes detection much, much easier and I trust that more training will be undertaken in. the next fortnight to help the referees get a higher percentage right. These acts are not always clear-cut. There are question marks over the way Liverpool's Fernando Torres went to ground after a tackle from Zat Knight when Liverpool were trailing 1-0 to Bolton; There was doubt in referee Alan Wiley's mind and so, following guidelines, he did not penalise. The problem is clear. The rewards for diving far outweigh the risks. If successful, the, diver can win a penalty and perhaps see his opponents reduced to 10 men. If caught he gets a yellow card: In response to this problem, some suggest that simulation should become a red card offence; I am not in favour of this because it would apply too much pressure on the match officials, who would naturally err on the side of caution. It is little wonder that UEFA are looking at imposing a two-match ban for those who deceive the referee. Yet while their intentions are honourable, their solution does not seem to be fair or equitable as the same unfair act is punished in very different ways. It is also nigh-on impossible for UEFA to judge every potential simulation unless they intend to review every second of every match played under their jurisdiction. The solution, of course, lies with the perpetrators and their managers, who appear unable to see the wrong-doings of their own players but are eagle-eyed and quick to apportion blame when they are on the receiving end. We should see the PFA working tirelessly in a bid to stop their members clearly cheating to win and the LMA should urge their managers to work in training to open the eyes of players as to the damage they are doing to the game. In the meantime, the FA, in consultation with UEFA and FIFA, should work out a consistent punishment for divers to ensure the risks start to outweigh the rewards. A two match ban, whether the referee sees it or not, would seem to be the best way, because fine are irrelevant for millionaires. The 'three strikes and out rule' might be worth exploring, too; clubs whose players consistently cheat eventually collect a points deduction or an elimination from a competition. Under such a scheme, Arsenal, with two recent incidents, would be one away from further punishment, although Eduardo and Eboue went down in different competitions, so that may not be so easy to enforce. The 'media can only name and shame the culprits. The players have the power to put an end to this debate by staying on their feet.
|
|
FA hypocrites should show more respect
Henry Winter writes in The Daily Telegraph Friday 13th November 2009
WHEN certain people sign up to work for the Football Association they seem to take the Hypocrite Oath. They berate and banish Sir Alex Ferguson for a stupid comment about a slightly chubby referee and cravenly ignore all the good the Manchester United manager has done, all the glory he has brought to English football, all the talent he has helped mould for the cause of St George. So who do you want influencing football? Pen pushers or Treble-winners? Ferguson's verdict on Alan Wiley's fitness was undoubtedly insulting and iniquitous. Referees, even those like Wiley slightly lacking sleekness, deserve respect. The alternative is mayhem in the opinion forming playgrounds of the Premier League and subsequent anarchy in the UK schoolyards. Those brought up to bow at the altar of "the referee is always right even when he is blatantly wrong" cannot tolerate Ferguson's stance. The belittling of officials is a widespread modern curse that needs combating. Even Fabio Capello ambushed the referee in the tunnel in Dnepropetrovsk, raging 'about decisions against England, using language that would make Ferguson blush. Did the FA call Capello to account? No chance. "As the senior statesman, Fergie should be setting an example," reflected an England supporter yesterday. "A lot of young managers look up to him, but any other manager probably would not have been punished so harshly. The FA has got to be more consistent really. Players abuse the officials weekly." And escape. The case against Ferguson lacks perspective. It is like hounding Barack Obama for double-parking outside the White House. The FA must see the bigger picture with Ferguson. This is an individual whose managerial feats have been worth tens of millions of pounds to his rivals, raising the Premier League's coefficient to permit a fourth side into the Champions League. At the risk of straying further into Monty Python territory, what has Ferguson ever done for English football? Well, this is a leader of men who has built on David Moyes's fine work at Everton to nurture Wayne Rooney into England's one saving grace. This is the club boss who could supply more than half of England's starting XI in Ben Foster, Wes Brown, Rio Ferdinand, Michael Carrick, Owen Hargreaves and Rooney, let alone cultivating Ravel Morrison as a potential gem for 2014. Better than Kieran Gibbs and Jack Wilshere, certainly up there with Jack Rodwell, if Morrison does emerge as the pre-eminent English footballer of his generation, it will be because of a certain Scot's shrewd guidance. I can't remember the last time the FA acknowledged Ferguson's role in shaping England's present or future. Crassly imitating a scene from Swift, Lilliputian no-names attempt to bring down a giant of the game. The cast of pygmies includes Alan Leighton, a rep from referees' union Prospect, an unknown organisation in football until its pushy principal began piggybacking on Ferguson's fame. Apparently, Prospect represents referees. So Leighton will know that Ferguson was the first manager to inquire after Mark Halsey's health. It is the inconsistency of individuals such as Leighton that is particularly galling. Ferguson makes a mistake and gets pilloried. Leighton's members make shocking errors, ignoring beach-balls and bad challenges, yet the Prospect chief stays silent. The FA seems to have been swayed by a union man stamping his feet and spouting off on the airwaves. Football would be better place if a wise owl such as Ferguson, for all his acerbic outbursts, was advising the FA and its hordes of amateurs on how to run the game. In a land where many FA types just worry about guaranteeing their free tickets to Wembley every year, Ferguson plots how to take his team there again and again. Ferguson contributes so much to the game that the FA fails to note. England's most important player, Rooney, rallied to his manager's defence yesterday, detailing why Ferguson should be cherished. "First of all the trophies he's won," began Rooney, "and the type of football he wants you to play - attacking football all the time. Sometimes you feel you can't do it but he keeps you going. At his age [67], he still wants to win all the time. That's incredible to see." Ferguson should show more respect to referees - and football should show more respect to Ferguson.
Only severe punishment can stop this cheating
Writes Jim White in the 11th November issue of the Daily Telegraph
IN HIS autobiography, Steven Gerrard said of players who dived: "If I saw a team-mate doing it, I would definitely have a word." Presumably the word the Liverpool captain had with his colleague, David Ngog, whose impression of Tom Daley against Birmingham on Monday night earned his club a penalty, was congratulations. Rarely can a belly flop have been as spectacularly rewarded: another defeat for his team and Gerrard's domestic season would have been as good as over. Thanks to Ngog, they live to dive another day. This is the problem with diving: publicly, those within the game are granite-faced with disapproval. Privately, however, they know full well that there are many circumstances in which the con artist can deliver enormous benefit to their cause. Of course, the practice has long been with us. Way back in the Sixties, there was a joke among rival fans about Francis Lee: "Have you heard that Manchester City have signed a Vietnamese player? Yeah, he's called Lee Won Pen". But there is no question that divers now pollute the game to a far greater extent than ever: once every club had a talented ball-player, now they all have someone - to use the euphemism Sir Alex Ferguson once applied to Ronaldo - "light on their feet". Naturally, Ferguson himself publicly rails against the low art. He recently suggested such is the odious prevalence of diving at the top of the game, soon it will be copied in under-12 games across the land. It seems he doesn't watch many under-12 games: it is already possible every week to witness young players falling over as if struck by sniper fire the moment they advance into their opponents' penalty area. Since public opprobrium is clearly not enough to rid the game of the scourge, and since the stocks are no longer considered a punishment worthy of a civilised society, something more practical needs to be done to stop the divers. Here are five ideas: Hurt the players. To be fair to Peter Walton, the referee at Monday's game, from where he saw it, Ngog might well have been tripped. The video footage from five different positions, however, proved his was the only angle from which such a conclusion could be drawn. Given his positioning, it would not undermine the referee's authority retrospectively to impose some sort of punishment It can happen when the cameras catch someone assaulting an opponent and the ref missed it, so why not when they cheat? But, as Neil Warnock recently put it, the punishment has to hurt: "It's no good fining them because they get paid so much and managers aren't going to do it, as I know from personal experience. A minimum six-game ban would stop it immediately. " Hurt the clubs. Introduce a system whereby every time a player is caught cheating, the club receive a disciplinary point. When they have accumulated, say, five, they are then deducted three league points. Points are already removed for going into administration or playing unregistered players, effectively forms of off-field cheating. So the precedent is established. Employ a video ref. It has to be introduced. Particularly as the argument that it will delay proceedings is fallacious. On Monday, for instance, Walton, having blown his whistle at Ngog's fall, could have quickly consulted an assistant watching the game on TV. Gifted better angles, the video ref would offer his advice on any decision. Following a brief discussion, either the penalty kick would be awarded, or, in the event of an attempted con, the defending team given a free-kick and the cheater a yellow card. Since this recourse would only be used in the event of a potential penalty, interruption to the flow of the game would be minimal. Use extra referees. The method preferred by Michel Platini. "1 am convinced, with the extra officials, that if you have referees close by it will prevent players from simulating and they will take the right decision," the Uefa president says. ''I've always said it is better to have more referees than a multiplication of disciplinary procedures or to refer to videos during matches." A particularly practical solution when television cameras are not present. Education, education, education. I recently witnessed an under-10 game in which one of the sides had been drilled in all sorts of cheating: shirt-pulling, standing on rivals toes at corners, feigning injury. Plus, of course, diving. If youngsters can be thus coached, they can similarly be conditioned not to behave like that. All FA coaching courses should include modules on sportsmanship. It may take time, but it is within our grasp to produce a generation of players who, when out on the pitch, would never even consider the idea of diving. And not just reserve their disapproval for their autobiography. |
|
Fifa’s gilded elite find it all too easy to ignore an inconvenient truth
Brian Moore The Daily Telegraph Thursday January 21
THE Fifa official mission statement, under the heading 'What we stand for" makes the following grandiose claim: '"Integrity. We believe that, just as the game itself, Fifa must be a model of fair play, tolerance, sportsmanship and transparency". It is signed by Joseph S Blatter. On Dec 2, the Fifa executive committee asked the disciplinary committee to analyse the handling offence committed by Thierry Henry during the France v Republic of Ireland match on Nov 18, and to consider the possible disciplinary consequences. Following its meeting this week, Fifa said that its disciplinary committee had reached the conclusion that there was no legal foundation for the committee to consider the case because handling the ball could not be regarded as a serious infringement as stipulated in article 77a) of the Fifa disciplinary code. There was no other legal text that would allow the committee to impose sanctions for any incidents missed by match officials. Can anyone square this wilful inaction with the core value claimed in Fifa's mission statement? Can anyone, other than Blatter, seriously argue that the Henry incident, which cannot be divorced from its context, was not serious and that it clearly runs counter to Fifa's alleged model of fair play? The only people capable of rationalising the irrational are the cowards that sit at football's top table. For them, black can be white, or indeed any colour they choose, because the rest of the footballling world has no say. Fifa is as opaque and unaccountable as the European Commission and shares the same disregard for democracy and application of its own rules. Jerome Champagne, Fifa's director of international relations and a potential force for good, has been sacked. So, when the World Cup kicks off in South Africa - amid the unavoidable self congratulation and trite parroting of the phrase 'the beautiful game' - we should remind ourselves that the men on screen are the same craven bunch who cannot bring themselves to stand for what is right when it all becomes too inconvenient.
|
|
Former rugby referee Brian Moore tries the rugby whistle
The Daily Telegraph 25th February 2010
YOU don't expect to be nervous when you're not playing; after all you don't have 14 team-mates you can disappoint. So why were the butterflies flitting about before a game between Rosslyrn Park Nomads and a London Scottish XV? Maybe because' as a referee I realised I could disappoint all 30 players and any spectators. Then there was the little matter of the TV crew and several snappers. OK, the media presence is not something that afflicts the average rugby referee, but the responsibility for the game as an event is something that is in his hands and is a significant difference from partaking as a player. Take, for just one example, the pre-match period. As a player all you have to concentrate on is putting on your kit and thinking about what you need to do while warming up. As a referee you have to manage that period by liaising with teams, the medical staff, your assisting officials, and the groundsman, ensuring each person is aware of what they need to do in this period and during and after the game. I don't imagine many spectators or players ever question whether the ball is the regulation size and weight; the pitch is correctly marked or that there are the correct number of players on the field at kick-off - I certainly didn't when I turned out. As I was changing, a whole list of things that previously had never entered my head before a game kept popping out as "Oh, I need to check that" - like a burgeoning shopping list as you push a trolley around the supermarket. When a player is thrown his shirt it probably doesn't register as anything at all, but my first real problem was what to do about both teams turning up to play in red and white. With neither side wanting to change their traditional strip and bearing in mind something had to be done to make the game start, we ended up with both captains accepting my offer to do the best I could to differentiate but that any cases of mistaken identity would have to be accepted with good grace. In the end, as if by magic, 15 blue shirts were conjured up and this headache went away. It is this authority, and indeed duty, to manage the whole affair that brings a referee both pressure but also pleasure; which of us does not harbour some small leaning towards occasional dictatorship, even if benevolent? This must be the principal attraction for any person who takes to the dark side; as it is known in rugby circles. While many might deny this seduction, it has to be so or a referee is not doing his job. OK, they are not here to watch you, but if you don't exert an authority, and thereby a significant influence, the game will not function properly and whatever spectacle they might have come to watch will not happen either. Even though my former playing days hit the heights, I still felt uncomfortable going into each changing room and laying down the law on the laws; what I would and would not tolerate. I was remembering what I used to think when on the other end of these lectures. I used to make up my mind in about 15 seconds as to what a particular referee was going to be like from what he said at this juncture. Too familiar meant inappropriately lax; too officious meant that the bloke undoubtedly knew every law and at some point would demonstrate this by blowing continually and signalling in an overtly precise fashion - and God help the referee who turned up with brand new white bootlaces. As it was, my reputation for being somewhat pathological about the scrum had already infiltrated the minds of the respective front rows and scrum-halves, who volunteered to put the ball in straight and not to push early. With regard to the general stuff, all I felt I needed to stress was the tackle, which I addressed by saying: "The main thing I want in the tackle is for the tackler, to ---- off straight away; and I mean instantly, not quickly." I didn't feel the need to warn about backchat because the sanctions are there to deal with that and anyway, a referee who says this first betrays an insecurity that is recognised by players as soon as he opens his mouth. If a captain is clever he will use this to his advantage by pressurising a referee with gentle suggestions which, although seemingly inoffensive, and indeed helpful, will be regular and will contrast with the open challenges the referee might receive from the opposition. "Is the gap [in the line-out] OK ref?"; "Are we 10?"; "Are you happy with our binding?" these are ways of highlighting that you are doing it right and by implication they are not. In this way a subconscious store of goodwill accrues which can come out in the way that the SO/50 decisions are made. As the teams lined up for the kick-off I checked both captains were ready and with a frisson of excitement blew the whistle, what followed was, by common assent, a flawless demonstration of officiating. I made no mistakes and the players, other officials and crowd had nothing to complain about - as a referee you cannot realistically expect positive acclamation. The game flowed and Park scored a scintillating try with the sort of handling that unfortunately escapes England's backs all too often. Yes, for the 2 1/2 minutes I was on the field I was brilliant; until my right calf tore and it felt like I had been shot by some embittered and jealous member of the fraternity, envious at all the misplaced attention my foray to the dark side had attracted. I could only hobble off with the laughter ringing in my ears; my embarrassment complete and pride demolished. Lessons I perhaps didn't learn - nobody likes a smart -arse and get lit before you do this.
Below are some of the reactions to the Arsenal players Ramsey breaking his leg after a challenge by Stoke’s Ryan Shawcross
Ramsey’s pain a legacy of aggressive culture
Kevin Garside The Daily Telegraph
ARSENE WENGER has a point. The tackle that snapped Aaron Ramsey's leg in two was horrendous, however it was not executed as part of a grand design to kick Arsenal off the pitch. Ryan Shawcross's tears revealed the remorse he felt. Clearly his intention was not to inflict career-threatening damage on a young footballer, but the incident does highlight the need for football to address the kind of machismo-led madness that left Ramsey in bits. Shawcross was not alone in detonating unnecessary violence on Saturday. Manchester City's Carlos Tevez might have been sharing the next bed to Ramsey's had the Argentine not withstood the mindless lunge of Chelsea's Michael Ballack, which arguably carried greater force. How many times do we see players dive in from behind, only to admonish the referee that they got the ball when the cards come out? The impulse to dive in is indelibly linked to a culture in our game fostered at grassroots. You can hear it up and down the land: "Get stuck in". This brainless urging corrupts in infancy and contributes to an attitude that fails, in adulthood, to distinguish between legitimate aggression and thuggery. The legacy of this lunacy is propped up in a hospital bed this morning contemplating an uncertain future. One hopes that Ramsey makes a full recovery, for his and Shawcross's sake. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A number of football people were asked about whether players have a duty of care towards each other (Taken from The Daily Mail Saturday March 6th)
Arsene Wenger All players should have a duty of care, and most of them have it. I can understand people want to be committed and I have no problem with that. I like players who put their foot in, but it has to be with a fair intention. . There is a grey area over intent. You can never prove it; There are a few tackles where you can say that ~ the tackler should be suspended for as long as the guy is injured. But you have to prove intent. Ramsey went for the ball. I like that kind of commitment. The one interesting thing in England is You I can watch a game "between two average sides and its interesting because of the commitment. But ' the commitment demands a fair intention. Then, if an accident happens, an accident happens. I admire a great technical tackle as much as a creative pass. It is an art in itself - that means" you always have your eye on the ball, never with a high foot. We've had three players this year who have had surgery as a result of reckless challenges: Robin Vein Persie, Kieran Gibbs and now Ramsey. What I say is not just for Stoke or Arsenal, it is for everybody. I defend football and the values I believe are important for our club and football. That doesn't mean we are angels and everyone else is the devil. It is for everybody. And we have responsibility with our comments before a game as much as after it. If somebody comes out before the game and says 'we have to kick them', they should not play in that game. Comments after a game provoke ego injuries, comments before provoke physical injuries. Ramsey will come back, but you never know what the psychological impact will be. Some players are never the same anymore.
David Moyes AT Everton we've lost three players Fellinl, Anlchebe and Phil Neville - to long term injuries over the past year after tackles we were not happy about. It is always going to be hard calling a tackle, and It isn't helped by the number of players who go to ground far too easily. There is nothing wrong with a hard tackle; it is an Integral part of the game. Equally, players should be mindful of the possible consequences before they go steaming in. It's all well and good being sorry afterwards, but it's too late then. Give a tackle everything you've got, but do your utmost to make sure it is correctly timed. For all the serious injuries we have seen, I honestly don't think there is one player in the modern game who goes out with the intention of deliberately hurting an opponent. Maybe there used to be. Thankfully, those days have gone, but we still get reminders of the damage that can be done when a tackle is mistimed.
Roy Keane TACKLING is a massively important part of the game. If it was all about 11 skilful players out there, it wouldn't be the same game. Nobody wants to see players getting injured, but its part of sport. There's an edge to top-level sport, an element of danger. Why do you think football is more popular than snooker? As much as I admire skill, a good tackle can lift fans off their seats. It was a part of the game I enjoyed, whether I was making tackles or receiving them. If anyone thinks players are out to break legs at Arsenal, it is a crazy notion. I can understand Arsene Wenger's frustration but we can't take away the physical side of the game. If you ask me to go back over Arsenal teams of the past 10 to 15 years, I can remember playing against people like Martin Keown and Patrick Vieira. They both liked a tackle, if I remember it right.
Ray Wilkins Generally players do respect opponents. I wish I was a midfielder nowadays. The pitches are much better and you don't get kicked up in the air. But if England had come into line many years ago with Europe, in that the raising of a stud is a free kick and a yellow card, then I'm sure we would have limited the amount of problems we find ourselves having . Rafa Benitez THE Premier League is a physical league and if we want to continue in this way then a lot depends on referees. The fact is that we have far too many serious injuries in this country, and as a manager you have to be worried about that. The people at the top of the game, those who run the game in this country, need to analyse what is best for the game.
Martin O’Neil. WHAT I think that the f referees have done very well is that the two-footed challenge is outlawed. You are pretty much getting automatic red cards for that. If you are jumping off the ground with two feet off the air into someone, then there is a fair intention of hurting someone. A duty of care does exist. It might be unspoken, but it does exist.
Mick McCarthy OBVIOUSLY there should be a duty of care, but if we are talking about last week specifically, I don't think it was malicious. Ryan Shawcross is a young man trying to win the football, not to hurt someone. But you are talking about fine lines. You ask players to compete. Accidents can happen in any contact sport. It's sad, but that's the truth of it.
SIR Alex Ferguson I PHONED Ryan Shawcross in the week. I know the boy because we had him here for some time as a kid. There's not a more honest boy in the world and I'm pleased that everyone has recognised that It was an honest challenge. I think even Arsenal do, or I hope they do. He was pilloried by the Arsenal players after it, but he was distraught and you'd think that would have registered with Arsenal. It didn't and the boy has had to carry that burden. But he can hold his head up - he's not that kind of player . You could see that Arsene Wenger was tense and uptight afterwards. These moments of emotion can really affect you. He was obviously feeling for the player and I'd be exactly the same.
Brian Laws I LIKE to see players tackle fairly but strongly. It shows they want the ball more than the opposition. I think teams do prepare differently against Arsenal because they're a fantastic side. Teams have got more into their faces, got closer to them and tackled more against them, but I've not seen any team that's deliberately gone out there to try to hurt anybody.
Roy Hodgson DO I believe that players have a duty of care to their fellow professionals out on the pitch? The answer is yes.
Roberto Martinez REFEREES should be sponger and look to protect the flair player a bit more. The rules should help the attacking players. But a tackle does not have to be malicious to be dangerous. If it is mistimed, you can still put someone's career on hold for nine months, which is a big price to pay. Paying the price of a broken leg because you are trying to be a creative player Is too much of a risk. The rules should be a bit stricter.
Harry Redknapp Players deserve a duty of care. I think with Shawcross, you only have to look at his reaction when he came off. He was distraught by what had happened not because he'd been sent off but because the boy was hurt and he cared.
Can Football learn from Hockey?
Martin Samuel writing in The Daily |Mail Wednesday 17th February
AND while on the subject of radical overhauls, how is this for another? In January, hockey introduced a self-pass rule for free hits. Basically, in the event of a foul, when the play restarts (with the equivalent of a free-kick in football), the player does not have to pass to a team-mate but can choose to dribble the ball instead. The penalised team must not be within five metres when he takes his first touch and off we go. I saw this experiment in action on Sunday and tried to find a reason why it is not used In football: so far, I have none. I expected the self pass to make the game quicker and therefore more exciting, which it did - and hockey is substantially faster than football already - and I liked the Idea of giving additional advantage to the injured party. The third benefit, which I had not considered, was that the self pass Improves discipline by making it foolish in the extreme to argue with the referee. If the opposition can just put the ball down and play on, only an idiot would risk being out of position disputing the decision. There truly was no downside. Unlike Arsene Wenger's idea to turn throw-ins into kick-Ins, here was an idea that improved the game as a spectacle and made it fairer, without altering the way it was played. The match I watched was Reading versus Beeston, first versus third in the Men's Premier Division of the England Hockey League, so it was of high quality. As in football, teams at that level are too well organised to allow players to run with the ball uninterrupted, so the self-pass rule did not unleash a series of mazy dribbles around the pitch. Often a player took a couple of touches and laid it off, as he would in normal play. What changed was the speed with which a team could get on with the game. When a foul occurred, the ball was placed -it has to be stationary - tapped and the attack began. The five-metre rule says that an opponent should not be within that distance but, if he is, he cannot play the ball, so there is no question of failing to retreat to delay the restart. Nobody waited for a whistle to be blown, either. Once the foul had been awarded it was up to the team with the free hit to begin the play and often this happened so quickly there appeared no break in the action. Football could learn a lot from hockey, not least from the traffic light system of awarding cards. Green cards are a warning; two green cards make a yellow card and a minimum of five minutes in the sin bin; a player can receive two yellow cards for different offences but the second sin bin punishment Is substantially longer; two yellow cards for the same offence make a red card, expulsion from the game and a lengthy ban. One umpire told me: 'If I show a yellow card, your team won't see you for a few minutes; if I show a red card they won't see you for a few months.' By having more wriggle room, hockey umpires can use more discretion than football referees. It is ludicrous that in football an ill-judged goal celebration carries the same penalty as a potentially leg-breaking tackle. Strange, too, that football seems so resistant to change. Hockey's self pass looked an excellent concept: sadly, all football innovations are money motivated.
Dermot Gallagher on ‘that’ goal for Porto!
By Rob Stewart writing in The Daily Telegraph
DERMOT GALLAGHER, the former Premier League referee, has admitted that he found Porto's controversial winner over Arsenal "strange". While Gallagher insisted Swedish referee Martin Hansson was right to award the decisive goal in Porto's 2-1 Champions League win, he claimed the circumstances were "out of sync" with officiating in England and across Europe. "In theory' everything he has done he will be able to justify in law," Gallagher said. "Why we look at it so strangely is because it is totally out of sync with on what happens in the modem game. The Arsenal versus Chelsea match [six] years ago was about the last time we had a quick free-kick [when Thierry Henry scored as Petr Cech lined up his wall]. "We just don't see it because the referee wants to control the situation. He demands now that players are back 10 yards and that the ball is played properly and you even see them walking now with the whistle in the air. It is almost the case that every free-kick I see in the Premier League and Champions League is marked out 10 yards, whistle in the air." Despite feeling the referee was correct, Gallagher was surprised the goal was allowed to stand. "He [Hansson] can say he got everything right," Gallagher added. "He will say he thought it was a deliberate backpass. He will say the goalkeeper is not entitled to hold on to the ball so he has given it "The problem was that he made a quick decision. He has gone to the area quickly to defuse any argument, which there wasn't going to be because Sol Campbell was so disappointed he held his head in his hands. "In that situation I was really surprised because normally the goalkeeper drops the ball behind him or something and makes someone fetch it, which would delay matters. These are the things that normally come into play which didn't fully expected the goal to be disallowed, although in law it is correct Once again we are left with this mystery of what was his [Hansson's] mindset"
Michael Oliver – Youngest Premier League referee
Daily Mail Friday 8th January 2010
FOR a young man whose local watering hole goes by the name of The Block· and Tackle, a career in refereeing would seem an ideal choice. The name of the pub in Ashirigton, birthplace of Sir Bobby Charlton and brother Jack, refers to lifting equipment. But that is equally apt given how quickly Michael Oliver has hauled himself to the top level of his profession. The 24-year-old from Northumberland will tomorrow become the youngest referee since the Premier League began in 1992 when he takes charge of Fulham's home game against Portsmouth. The game is the next landmark stage in Oliver's rapid rise in the world of officiating which has seen him follow in father Clive's footsteps, although Oliver Snr has never had the .honour of blowing his whistle in the top flight. Record breaking has been Michael's stock-in-trade ever since he turned his back on playing the game as a youngster despite earning a place at the academy of his beloved Newcastle United. '. Having cut his refereeing teeth as a 14-year-old in the Coast Colts League in Northumberland, a week after his 16th birthday Oliver was officiating at senior level in the blood and thunder of the Morpeth Sunday League - not for the fainthearted.. By 18, he had become the youngest Conference referee' and the milestones have continued to be passed ever since. The roll call is as follows: youngest Football League linesman, youngest Football League referee, youngest referee at Wembley and youngest fourth official at a Premier League game. Oliver, although admitting to be 'chuffed to bits' by his appointment, says: 'I have been lucky. All the way through I have got the record for being the youngest but I don’t set out to do that. I just get my head down and work.' Unsurprisingly, he counts his dad as a major influence on his chosen career path which bas gone hand in hand with him studying for and earning a BSc degree in sport and exercise development from Sunderland University. 'I got interested in refereeing from watching my Dad when I was younger,’ he says. 'And he is the perfect coach to have; He's willing to listen and lend a hand but not afraid to tell it like it is. We don't analyse each other's games as a rule but if something has happened we tend to sit down with the DVD and ask for an opinion,' Dad is not the only person on hand to make sure Oliver Jnr's feet remain firmly on the ground. Having received some newspaper flak from Stoke boss Tony Pulis after a defeat by Preston at Deepdale in February 2008, Oliver recalls: 'When I went into university the next day they had it stuck on the wall, so you can laugh about it. We are sent DVDs and you look to see what you could have done differently. But then you move on to the next game.' With managers queuing up to blame referees .for the team's demise, Oliver has had to develop a thick skin very quickly. There was some stick from Birmingham's Maik Taylor after he awarded a penalty to' Plymouth in last season's 1-1 draw at St Andrew's before sending the veteran keeper off. And by way of an initiation ceremony, Oliver. was not spared' a ticking off from every referee's favourite manager, Nell Warnock. The Crystal Palace boss was livid after Oliver disallowed a Jose Fonte header midway through the second half of his side's 4-3 FA Cup fourth round defeat to Watford last January. Warnock described the decision as ‘a disgrace’ before adding: ‘I don’t see how referees can have the understanding of the game at that age. Stuart Attwell was the same and they are sprinting before they can walk. The way they are going he will be in the Premier League next year.' Mystic Neil has proved to be spot on with his prediction. And although Oliver is supremely confident in his abilities, the fall-out from Attwell's 'phantom goal’ fiasco, when the referee awarded Reading a goal against Watford when the ball didn't go between the posts, means he knows he will be subjected to similar treatment should he make a mistake. 'Only afterwards,' if I get a decision wrong, or if Stuart gets one wrong, is age mentioned,' says Oliver. 'It isn't just a wrong decision; it's a wrong decision from a 24-year-old.' Oliver is used to making tough decisions. After all, he awarded the first penalty and showed the first red card at the new Wembley during the Conference play-off between Exeter and Morecambe three years ago. But should there be any signs of him turning into one of those referees who delights in being the centre of attention now that his career has hit the big time, then he has the regulars of his local to bring him back down to earth. 'Despite all the travelling involved with the job, I still feel very much at home in Ashington, having a kick-about with the lads from the pub,' he says. Indeed, Oliver still gets the opportunity to see the game from the managerial side of the fence by taking charge of the pub team when he gets the chance. But should his "Craven Cottage debut go according to plan, his top-flight commitments are likely to see The Block and Tackle side in the market for a new boss.
(Footnote – The Premier game between Fulham and Portsmouth that Michael was due to referee was called off)
Mark Halsey – Cancer fight
Mail On Sunday December 6th 2009 By Peter Higgs
MARK HALSEY had not eaten for three days, was utterly exhausted but could not hide his elation. The results of a scan taken at the start of last week had shown that the 48-yearId Premier League referee's throat cancer was in remission Three-and-a-half months after being told that he had the worst example of the disease his consultant had ever encountered; Halsey could start planning his comeback to Old Trafford, Anfield, Stamford Bridge and the other major grounds. Chemotherapy since his condition was confirmed in August had weakened his immune system, leaving him vulnerable to a virus, and medical staff had told him it may be another month before he felt well. He must also undergo daily radiotherapy treatment aimed at stopping the cancer returning. The therapy is due to finish on Christmas Day. Yet the former St Albans City goalkeeper, who has been devoted to football since he was a teenager, is looking eagerly towards New Year celebrations that will differ from those of the recent past. On New Year's Eve 2008 Halsey's wife, Michelle, was diagnosed with chronic myloid leukaemia, which is treatable but not curable and for which she must take medication for the rest of her life. Halsey is simply relieved that they have a future together. 'Hopefully for me and Michelle there's a better 2010 round the corner,' he said at his home in Little Lever, near Bolton. 'It's not been a very good year for us, a long haul, very emotional and with lots' of tears. When I come back on that pitch there will be a few more tears, too.' From the frightening first few days of his illness - when he asked his consultant 'Am I going to die?' - until the moment last week when the same man, Professor Tim Illidge, ran into his hospital room, punched the air and shouted: 'Mark, you've done it!' Halsey has been staggered by the response of the football community. The biggest names in the game - Sir Alex Ferguson, Arsene Wenger, Wayne Rooney, John Terry and Frank Lampard - have been in contact to wish him well, and he has been overwhelmed by the hundreds of letters he has received from fans all over Britain and from as far afield as Kosovo, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Hungary. Their encouragement, his own positive attitude and his refusal to stop training are, he believes, helping him fight his cancer. 'I've really been taken aback,' said Halsey. 'You don't realise how many people round the world know you, and it's meant so much. It has really kept me going.' Ferguson was one of the first to telephone, a response that may surprise those who only recognise the Manchester United manager's willingness to criticise match officials. 'The way Sir Alex is about referees is just emotion at the end of a game,' said Halsey. 'That's all it is. He's very good in situations like mine and sees me as part of the football family. Some players regard us as bad people, but we are all in this together and most appreciate that you're just a human being doing what can sometimes be a very tough job. 'I got a text from Arsene Wenger and people like Gary Megson are on all the time checking that I'm all right. Jose Mourinho has invited me to Italy and I've pencilled in the Milan derby on January 29 to go to see him.' As an official who prides himself on man-management and used to be criticised by assessors for not booking enough players, Halsey admits his recent trauma will affect his approach, 'I'll still want to get every decision right,' said the father of three-year-old Lisa and two grown-up sons from his first marriage. 'But 1 won't worry about it any more. You have to keep life in perspective.' His target is to return to refereeing by the end of January and be back in the Premier League by February, when his hair should have grown back. . He would like to remain on the list for another two years and be in charge of the FA Cup final, which would be a 'Roy of the Rovers' finale to his comeback. Not through sentiment, he insists, but because he has earned it. And if it does not materialise? 'Well, I'm still breathing, aren't I?' said Halsey.
Bully on pitch crosses line for next generation
Kevin Garside The Daily Telegraph Tuesday 10th November 2009
THERE'S the mark. Don't argue. The forwards of England and Australia, competitive beasts strung out by the intensity of combat and packing down at an average of 120 kilos a man, fell obediently into line. They did as they were told by Bryce Lawrence, irrespective of where they thought the scrummaging line might be. They did this out of respect for the referee, not the man necessarily, but for authority, the institution. To argue is plain wrong. Fast forward 24 hours from Twickenham to Chelsea. Martin Atkinson suffered 90 minutes of ritual dissent that at times bordered on abuse. At the more reasonable end of the spectrum Atkinson was met with subtle requests to explain himself. At the other he faced a pack of dogs. In rugby the players understand that the referee's decision is absolute, right or wrong. Protest is not an option. In football it is habitual. Behaviour is legitimised by the puerile conduct of managers who shout and scream all manner of injustices when decisions do not go their way. These were the first words spoken by Sir Alex Ferguson after the game at Stamford Bridge: "The referee's position to make the decision was absolutely ridiculous - he can't see anything. He's got a Chelsea player [Joe Cole] standing right in front of him - and he doesn't even move. It was a bad decision, but there's nothing we can do about it. You lose faith in refereeing sometimes, that's the way the players are talking in there - it was a bad one."· The authorities see nothing wrong in the comment, since, they argue, neither the referee's integrity nor his impartiality were questioned. Oh really? When is an insult not an insult? When it is directed at a figure regarded no higher than a serf by another of power and influence. Football does not get it. The game cannot proceed without rules. It is the job of the referee to apply them and the participants to respect them. Without that tacit agreement there is no game. To accept unconditionally a decision by the referee is the mark of a man. The more so if the decision is obviously bad, because we trust it is made in good faith. This is what is meant by respect. Ferguson and the football family show what they feel about that every time they take aim at the men in black. There is no respect, which is why the beautiful game is often ugly to watch. It is funny how concern about the veracity of decision-making dissipates when the bad ones go in your favour. Tolerance is relative when it should be unconditional. The blame culture that pervades is the stuff of the playground. Players and managers are metaphorically throwing the Monopoly board in the air because they have lost out on Park Lane and Mayfair. One can imagine the scrap at the start over who gets to throwfirst, or who gets to play with the top hat over the boot. On the morning of the match in a newspaper spread John Terry gave a testimonial to Didier Drogba in which he approved of the striker's eyes-on stalks, post-match confrontation with referee Tom Henning Ovrebo after Chelsea's exit in the Champions League to Barcelona. For Terry it was a demonstration of how much Drogba 'cared'. Even Drogba's eight-year-old son saw the flaws in that one, John. Maybe every player should answer for their actions to their children. We should line them up after the match and invite them to justify behaviour that would see their kids sent to bed without a biscuit. Terry's default lapse into the 'passion' justification to account for Drogba's tantrum is at the heart of the problem. Take that out of him and he would not be the same player, is the old standard rolled out after each indiscretion. Borat's mankini has more going for it than that argument. Sorry to bleat on about oval ball ethics, but rugby exposes the fallacy. Does Jonny Wilkinson lack passion when he throws his tender frame into the path of oncoming traffic? Of course not. It has been said before but is worth repeating. The ritual abuse and bullying of officials on our screens in professional football instructs our youngsters to do the same. On playing fields across Britain the game is grooming miniature hard men, the next generation of Drogbas and Keanes, who mimic what they see on Match of the Day. Slagging off the referee in youth football is regarded as a badge of honour, a demonstration of commitment, a way to earn the respect of one's peers. The rot trickles down from the Premier League, machismo masquerading as heart. It is nothing of the sort. The respect campaign is not working. There is none.
|