Well it's pretty obvious from the replays that David Ngog cheated by diving to get Liverpool a penalty from which they equalised on Monday night against Birmingham. Referee Peter Walton was well positioned, about 15 yards behind Ngog, who had burst into the Brum penalty area at high speed.
Just then Lee Carsley chose to slide in to try and get the ball off Ngog. Carsley missed everything; ball and player alike, but his actions gave Ngog just the opportunity he needed to practise his diving skills. Walton might have been helped if he had studied the recent research which showed that players who fling their arms up in the air - dying Swan-style - are generally cheating as it's an unnatural thing to do.
Carsley was daft. Going to ground in the penalty area dramatically increases the odds of giving a penalty away and as a seasoned pro he should have known that. Ngog appeared to have lost control of the ball as well.
But the bottom line is that Ngog cheated, just like so many other players. Players are now so skilled at cheating the refs often can't detect it. I guess, he thought wearily, that a retrospective decision by the FA might have some effect.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 09, 2009
Drogba was not offside
To declare my interest first - I'm a Chelsea fan.
Sunday's game between Chelsea and Man Utd was intriguing, if not particularly pleasing on the eye. Ferguson came to London looking for a draw, stuffing five players in midfield and squeezing as much life out of Chelsea as he could. The tactic almost worked, except for the Chelsea goal, which Man Utd have insisted should not have stood.
From my humble view as a refereeing spectator, this is what I saw.
1. Fletcher gets ball, then gets Cole. A clear reckless challenge, i.e. a foul. Free kick. Getting the ball when you also clear out the opposing player does not make it legal.
2. Drogba and Wes Brown tussle on the edge of the 6-yard box. Brown goes down. Foul? I've watched the replays but there's no clear conclusion. Yes Drogba has his hands on Brown but is Brown really so weak that he has to fall over? Centre-halves are supposed to be strong and the penalty box is full of this type of pushing and pulling.
3. Drogba was offside? No. Three points. Brown is on the ground level with Drogba so he is not in an offside position. Secondly, the only part of Law 11 that could snare Drogba is the part that says he was active because he was in an offside position and "making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts" the Man Utd goalkeeper, who was stranded two or three yards away from the ball. Waving his foot at the ball didn't distract Van der Saar. If he had touched it, he might well have been offside, but he didn't.
And finally, assistants are coached that if there is doubt about an offside, they must give the benefit of that doubt to the attacking player.
So grumble as he may in yet another (successful) attempt to deflect criticism from his players, Ferguson and Man Utd are wrong when they claim the Chelsea goal should not have stood.
It was the gamble of packing the midfield that failed, not the referee.
Sunday's game between Chelsea and Man Utd was intriguing, if not particularly pleasing on the eye. Ferguson came to London looking for a draw, stuffing five players in midfield and squeezing as much life out of Chelsea as he could. The tactic almost worked, except for the Chelsea goal, which Man Utd have insisted should not have stood.
From my humble view as a refereeing spectator, this is what I saw.
1. Fletcher gets ball, then gets Cole. A clear reckless challenge, i.e. a foul. Free kick. Getting the ball when you also clear out the opposing player does not make it legal.
2. Drogba and Wes Brown tussle on the edge of the 6-yard box. Brown goes down. Foul? I've watched the replays but there's no clear conclusion. Yes Drogba has his hands on Brown but is Brown really so weak that he has to fall over? Centre-halves are supposed to be strong and the penalty box is full of this type of pushing and pulling.
3. Drogba was offside? No. Three points. Brown is on the ground level with Drogba so he is not in an offside position. Secondly, the only part of Law 11 that could snare Drogba is the part that says he was active because he was in an offside position and "making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts" the Man Utd goalkeeper, who was stranded two or three yards away from the ball. Waving his foot at the ball didn't distract Van der Saar. If he had touched it, he might well have been offside, but he didn't.
And finally, assistants are coached that if there is doubt about an offside, they must give the benefit of that doubt to the attacking player.
So grumble as he may in yet another (successful) attempt to deflect criticism from his players, Ferguson and Man Utd are wrong when they claim the Chelsea goal should not have stood.
It was the gamble of packing the midfield that failed, not the referee.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Fletcher tricks himself out of a penalty
Interesting to pick our way through Alex Ferguson's latest comments after the Champions' League game against CSKA Moscow. Ferguson was clearly peeved at Darren Fletcher being cautioned for simulation. Welll he's right and wrong and the referee was right. Fletcher was fouled but he also dived. His two-legged tumble looked theatrical and way out of proportion to the slight contact made by the Russian defender.
If Fletcher had at least tried to stay on his feet or even just stumbled naturally, then I'm pretty sure the referee would have given the penalty. But the theatricality of the dive fooled the referee into thinking it was nothing more than a dive. Hence the yellow card for simulation.
The laws on simulation have been toughened to try and stamp out the cheating. On this occasion Fletcher cheated himself. He only has himself to blame.
If Fletcher had at least tried to stay on his feet or even just stumbled naturally, then I'm pretty sure the referee would have given the penalty. But the theatricality of the dive fooled the referee into thinking it was nothing more than a dive. Hence the yellow card for simulation.
The laws on simulation have been toughened to try and stamp out the cheating. On this occasion Fletcher cheated himself. He only has himself to blame.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Ambulance alert
After eight years of refereeing, I had my first case of a serious injury on Saturday when I was running the line in a cup match. The actions of the man in the middle were a good lesson in how to behave when an unexpected but severe injury strikes your match. With 25 minutes to go, the home team's goalkeeper rushed out to collect a through ball. The attacker slid in on the wet pitch and the goalkeeper was left sprawling in agony.
It was pretty quickly clear that the injury was serious. The ref had the trainer on pretty quickly, but he soon realised the player was going to need an ambulance. The referee got the two teams organised, telling them there was going to be a delay and that they could stay on the field or return to the dressing rooms. Most stayed out to keep loose and the officials concentrated on keeping spectators and other officials off the pitch.
After a break of more than an hour, the ambulance turned up. Various players had asked if the match would be abandoned but there was no reason to. The light was good, the weather OK, so the only danger was stiff muscles on the resumption. Concentration for the match officials was crucial at the restart and the last 20 minutes proved to be a difficult period as players struggled to regain their own focus.
But the referee's calm and positive approach throughout was a good lesson for me. The same can't be said for my muscles. the cold had crept into my bones and I could hardly move the enxt morning!
It was pretty quickly clear that the injury was serious. The ref had the trainer on pretty quickly, but he soon realised the player was going to need an ambulance. The referee got the two teams organised, telling them there was going to be a delay and that they could stay on the field or return to the dressing rooms. Most stayed out to keep loose and the officials concentrated on keeping spectators and other officials off the pitch.
After a break of more than an hour, the ambulance turned up. Various players had asked if the match would be abandoned but there was no reason to. The light was good, the weather OK, so the only danger was stiff muscles on the resumption. Concentration for the match officials was crucial at the restart and the last 20 minutes proved to be a difficult period as players struggled to regain their own focus.
But the referee's calm and positive approach throughout was a good lesson for me. The same can't be said for my muscles. the cold had crept into my bones and I could hardly move the enxt morning!
Ferguson wins again
Very few people seem to realise that Alex Ferguson has achieved exactly what he set out to and that he really couldn't give a toss if the FA forces him to watch the next few matches from the stands. His sole aim in criticising referees is to deflect public attention from his team's poor performances and he has done this twice recently, first when he questioned Alan Wiley's fitness and then again on Sunday when he made frankly bizarre criticisms of Andrew Marriner's refereeing experience.
Ferguson, in his cold and craggy heart, loathes referees anyway and has done all his life. As with all managers, referees should keep him at a respectful distance. He has developed wiles over the years but the criticism of referees is really one of the most transparent of his ruses. He's only doing it to stop his super-sensitive players from being criticised. If criticism of the Anfield playing surface, the floodlights or of his Aunt Jemimah tickled the national press and TV, Fergie would be blaming them for defeats.
Such has been Man United's dominance over the years that Fergis has only needed to pull this iron out of the fire a couple of times a season. But now his ageing team is showing distinct signs of fallibility, he's being forced to use - and over-use - the "useless ref" card. The Guardian may have run a full page about Fergie's relations with refs today but sooner or later the journalists will start devoting as much time to picking apart the Man Utd team, which is a long way from the force it was five years ago. The list of poor performers grows by the week. Giggs, Scholes, O'Shea, Vidic, Ferdinand, Rooney - all previously untouchable - to name but a few.
I suspect that if the rot continues, the spotlight may fall rather quickly on Ferguson and his inability to change and renew his squad, something he has been so good at doing in the past. So with his anti-ref torades, Fergie is hoping to keep the spotlight off his own managerial failings as well.
Ferguson, in his cold and craggy heart, loathes referees anyway and has done all his life. As with all managers, referees should keep him at a respectful distance. He has developed wiles over the years but the criticism of referees is really one of the most transparent of his ruses. He's only doing it to stop his super-sensitive players from being criticised. If criticism of the Anfield playing surface, the floodlights or of his Aunt Jemimah tickled the national press and TV, Fergie would be blaming them for defeats.
Such has been Man United's dominance over the years that Fergis has only needed to pull this iron out of the fire a couple of times a season. But now his ageing team is showing distinct signs of fallibility, he's being forced to use - and over-use - the "useless ref" card. The Guardian may have run a full page about Fergie's relations with refs today but sooner or later the journalists will start devoting as much time to picking apart the Man Utd team, which is a long way from the force it was five years ago. The list of poor performers grows by the week. Giggs, Scholes, O'Shea, Vidic, Ferdinand, Rooney - all previously untouchable - to name but a few.
I suspect that if the rot continues, the spotlight may fall rather quickly on Ferguson and his inability to change and renew his squad, something he has been so good at doing in the past. So with his anti-ref torades, Fergie is hoping to keep the spotlight off his own managerial failings as well.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Beach balls and Outside agents
It's the type of question most young referees face when they sit their examination to qualify as a lowly Level 7. "A player shoots and the ball is heading towards the goal when it hits a dog that has run onto the field of play and misses the goal. - what should you do."
For a reason that is not yet clear, referee Mike Jones seemed to forget that rule on Saturday when the foreign object was in fact a large red beach ball that played a pivotal role in Sunderland scoring what turned out to be the only goal of the game.
In terms of footballing law, it should be stated that the beach ball was not an Outside Agent (covered by Law 3) but counted as "outside interference" under law 5 of the laws of the game. An outside agent is living, while a bright red ball punched onto the pitch by a young Liverpool fan is not.
Jones should have stopped play as soon as he saw the red ball, and definitely as soon as it played a crucial part in a goal being scored. It wouldn't have mattered if the ball was already in the net. The ref can change his mind until play restarts. But, for some reason he didn't and he now faces widepsread humiliation.
So why didn't he stop play and order a dropped ball 12 yards out? Who knows? Did he simply not see the football hit the beach ball? That's possible. It was a crowded penalty area after all. Did he think Glen Johnson had actually toe-poked the beach ball out of the way? I have to confess I thought this was the case until I'd watched five or six replays.
Who knows? The only thing we do know is that Mr Jones will be refereeing in the relative obscruity of the Championship on Saturday, with only the fans of Peterborough and Scunthorpe around to throw dozens of inflatable beach balls onto the pitch!
For a reason that is not yet clear, referee Mike Jones seemed to forget that rule on Saturday when the foreign object was in fact a large red beach ball that played a pivotal role in Sunderland scoring what turned out to be the only goal of the game.
In terms of footballing law, it should be stated that the beach ball was not an Outside Agent (covered by Law 3) but counted as "outside interference" under law 5 of the laws of the game. An outside agent is living, while a bright red ball punched onto the pitch by a young Liverpool fan is not.
Jones should have stopped play as soon as he saw the red ball, and definitely as soon as it played a crucial part in a goal being scored. It wouldn't have mattered if the ball was already in the net. The ref can change his mind until play restarts. But, for some reason he didn't and he now faces widepsread humiliation.
So why didn't he stop play and order a dropped ball 12 yards out? Who knows? Did he simply not see the football hit the beach ball? That's possible. It was a crowded penalty area after all. Did he think Glen Johnson had actually toe-poked the beach ball out of the way? I have to confess I thought this was the case until I'd watched five or six replays.
Who knows? The only thing we do know is that Mr Jones will be refereeing in the relative obscruity of the Championship on Saturday, with only the fans of Peterborough and Scunthorpe around to throw dozens of inflatable beach balls onto the pitch!
Pain in the neck
Us refs are all used to carrying out the traditional jewelry checks pre-match, with a quick glance at the ears, fingers and - more recently the eyebrows - of players to see if they're wearing stuff they shouldn't be. Even wristbands now come under our scrutiny.
On Saturday, after carrying out the usual checks, I was horrified five minutes into the game when a home player ran in front of me, revealing two large, chunky metal studs embedded IN HIS NECK. My God, what next, I thought to myself, blowing my whistle.
"You're going to have to take those out player," I said, expecting - and receiving - the usual, "but they don't come off ref." I bit my lip, forcing myself not to say, "what, does your head fall off if they come out?" Off he went to the side of the pitch and I noticed a lot of rustling and the appearance of tape and bandages. "You can't tape them up, they have to come out," I shouted. Much harumphing and gnashing of teeth but at the next stoppage ... up goes the flag and a substitution is made. The metal lover's game is over after 5 minutes.
The captain makes a plea to allow him to tape the studs up but it's a non-starter, A wedding ring that will not budge, I'll make an exception for, but metal studs that could injure an opponent or himself; that's just plain nuts.
I was apparently the first referee ever to notice these adornments and the first to make a fuss. Well, I just hope the player gets them taken out; he'll probably enjoy a longer run in the team.
On Saturday, after carrying out the usual checks, I was horrified five minutes into the game when a home player ran in front of me, revealing two large, chunky metal studs embedded IN HIS NECK. My God, what next, I thought to myself, blowing my whistle.
"You're going to have to take those out player," I said, expecting - and receiving - the usual, "but they don't come off ref." I bit my lip, forcing myself not to say, "what, does your head fall off if they come out?" Off he went to the side of the pitch and I noticed a lot of rustling and the appearance of tape and bandages. "You can't tape them up, they have to come out," I shouted. Much harumphing and gnashing of teeth but at the next stoppage ... up goes the flag and a substitution is made. The metal lover's game is over after 5 minutes.
The captain makes a plea to allow him to tape the studs up but it's a non-starter, A wedding ring that will not budge, I'll make an exception for, but metal studs that could injure an opponent or himself; that's just plain nuts.
I was apparently the first referee ever to notice these adornments and the first to make a fuss. Well, I just hope the player gets them taken out; he'll probably enjoy a longer run in the team.
Who said that?
We're 10 minutes into the cup match and the game is progressing nicely. Ball goes out of play and the club assistant, doing his job properly, points his flag in the direction of the throw. I'm watching play from about 20 yards away and suddenly, from behind me, I hear "Lino you're a cheating c**t."I turn around to look at four defenders and a goalkeeper. It's obvious to me that the shout came from 50 yards away rather than 15 and that it's 99 percent certain that - for some unknown reason - the goalkeeper has screamed out the abuse that would normally earn him a straight red card.
But I didn't show him a red card. In fact I didn't even show him a yellow. The reason? I didn't see him shout the unpleasant curse. Although I was virtually certain it was the goalkeeper who shouted the abuse, I could not, hand on heart, say with absolute certainty that it was him. At an appeal hearing, the first thing the panel would say would be; "well referee, did you see the player shout abuse?" And the answer would have to be 'No.'
The goalkeeper didn't fall for the method that occasionally works. "What did you call him?" He'd been around too long for that, so I had to settle for a reprimand. The opposing team and manager were, of course, outraged and wanted to know why I had not taken any action. "If I can't see it I can't give it," was my response. I'd have liked nothing better than to have kicked the foul-mouthed 'keeper off the pitch, but couldn't.
But I didn't show him a red card. In fact I didn't even show him a yellow. The reason? I didn't see him shout the unpleasant curse. Although I was virtually certain it was the goalkeeper who shouted the abuse, I could not, hand on heart, say with absolute certainty that it was him. At an appeal hearing, the first thing the panel would say would be; "well referee, did you see the player shout abuse?" And the answer would have to be 'No.'
The goalkeeper didn't fall for the method that occasionally works. "What did you call him?" He'd been around too long for that, so I had to settle for a reprimand. The opposing team and manager were, of course, outraged and wanted to know why I had not taken any action. "If I can't see it I can't give it," was my response. I'd have liked nothing better than to have kicked the foul-mouthed 'keeper off the pitch, but couldn't.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Sorry I'm late - but Fergie's making my blood boil
It's been a strange start to the season, both for me as a ref and at the professionel level. I've spent half the time being gobsmacked that those involved in the game can sink to new lows of bad behaviour and the rest of the time, to be brutally honest, a little bored.
But finally my ire has been piqued enough by the behaviour of Alex Ferguson and Sam Allardyce and the crass reaction of the British media to their incredibly shallow diversionary tactics. Let's look at the facts shall we. Man Utd were outplayed on Saturday by Sunderland, Ferguson chose the wrong team, dropping several top players and Utd were lucky to survive for a draw. For years, Ferguson has adopted the trick of slagging off the referee when his boys play badly because he realises how easily the media can be manipulated. And what happened? Were Ferguson's tactics called into question and the quality of his team doubted? Of course not. Instead we're buried in ridiculous stories of Alan Wiley being unfit and (again) not adding pn enough time. I'm not sure who has been more useless; Man Utd or our beloved sports press. Ands Allardyce is up to the same tricks. His defence ships six goals at Arsenal and interviewers stare goggle-eyed as he shamelessly berates the ref for not giving a penalty that would - of course - have transformed his defenders from Under-12 players into premiership pros.
My season so far has been very peaceful - apart from one nasty match a little while ago that saw me send off two and wave the yellow card with gay abandon. More later on that one.
But finally my ire has been piqued enough by the behaviour of Alex Ferguson and Sam Allardyce and the crass reaction of the British media to their incredibly shallow diversionary tactics. Let's look at the facts shall we. Man Utd were outplayed on Saturday by Sunderland, Ferguson chose the wrong team, dropping several top players and Utd were lucky to survive for a draw. For years, Ferguson has adopted the trick of slagging off the referee when his boys play badly because he realises how easily the media can be manipulated. And what happened? Were Ferguson's tactics called into question and the quality of his team doubted? Of course not. Instead we're buried in ridiculous stories of Alan Wiley being unfit and (again) not adding pn enough time. I'm not sure who has been more useless; Man Utd or our beloved sports press. Ands Allardyce is up to the same tricks. His defence ships six goals at Arsenal and interviewers stare goggle-eyed as he shamelessly berates the ref for not giving a penalty that would - of course - have transformed his defenders from Under-12 players into premiership pros.
My season so far has been very peaceful - apart from one nasty match a little while ago that saw me send off two and wave the yellow card with gay abandon. More later on that one.
Monday, August 17, 2009
No changes to the offside law? WRONG
Come on Sky. Get your acts together. it really doesn't take brain scientists to work out there have been a couple of law changes that have been introduced this summer. "No changes to the offside laws this season then," said the Sky commentary team on Sunday.
Uuuuhh wrong!
Just about the only important change made to the laws for the start of this season IS to the offside law.
It covers players who have inadvertently left the field of play. A player who is off the field of play and over the goal-line will count as having one foot on the line and thus will be ON the field of play. This is a direct response to the chaos over an incident during a match between Italy and The Netherlands at Euro2008 when a goal by Ruud van Nistelrooj was allowed although he appeared to be in an offside position. An Italian player lying on the ground was adjudged to be involved in play, despite being a yard off the pitch. Being involved meant that he played Van Nistelrooj on.
A year after the tournament, this "law" has now been included - somewhat belatedly - in the laws of the game. Just wait for the first time this happens in the Premier League this season - they'll scream blue murder!
Uuuuhh wrong!
Just about the only important change made to the laws for the start of this season IS to the offside law.
It covers players who have inadvertently left the field of play. A player who is off the field of play and over the goal-line will count as having one foot on the line and thus will be ON the field of play. This is a direct response to the chaos over an incident during a match between Italy and The Netherlands at Euro2008 when a goal by Ruud van Nistelrooj was allowed although he appeared to be in an offside position. An Italian player lying on the ground was adjudged to be involved in play, despite being a yard off the pitch. Being involved meant that he played Van Nistelrooj on.
A year after the tournament, this "law" has now been included - somewhat belatedly - in the laws of the game. Just wait for the first time this happens in the Premier League this season - they'll scream blue murder!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
