I haven't seen a single reference to the attitude of the so-called victims in the incidents that caused all the uproar in the arse match.

Most of them looked to me as though there'd have been no incident at all if the victims hadn't gone through the statutory tumbling routine, Cole's probably being the most blatant.

I find it difficult to understand how it can be anything other than deliberate to go down as if poll-axed when a trailing leg is impeded. Fair enough if it's the leg bearing the weight that's caught, but the trailing leg ? Gamesmanship at the very least. Even wor Al is an expert at that one IMO.

More ammunition for the argument that technology should be introduced to try to help referees when they have to decide if a player is cheating.

Or something really novel like six officials per match - a referee and two linesmen for each half of the field, or maybe officials as they are now, but observers at strategic positions just off the touchline.

The point of this burble is that I think the ref problem will get a lot worse unless something's done to share out the responsibility for making controversial decisions like those in last night's game.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001

Answers

I have always said that the ref's job is impossible. I'm amazed that anyone would want to set themselves up for this, but at least they're paid now at top level, so there is some motivation there.

The "expert" summarisers with the media and other experts commenting on last night's game will have made their pronouncements on the correctness or otherwise of Mr Poll's decisions. Not a single one of them will have made their decision on the basis of what they saw live on the pitch. All will have viewed the incidents in slow motion from 6 different angles, before smugly pronouncing that Poll did well to get around the pitch considering he didn't have his white stick.

I have the greatest sympathy for refs. Of course, like everyone else, I will scream at them when I feel a decision has gone against us in error (or even when a correct decision is given against us!), but in my heart of hearts I know that with refs, you win some, you lose some and until extra technology is brought to bear, then there is little the poor refs can do about the situation.

As you may know, I feel The Laws of the Game are badly in error, which makes refereeing decisions so critical. The penalty is a particular bete noir of mine. Many games are decided by a single penalty decision which the slo-mo replays will show to have been incorrect. The award of a penalty is so huge and disproporionate to the offence 9 times out of 10, that it is small wonder players will dive and do anything to win one. This is a nonsense. When the pen was first introduced, I understand The Corinthians, opposed to the rule, would carefully place their penalties wide of the target. The Corinthians knew something, namely that the penalty is the stupidest rule in football. IMHO. Consider this : the exact same offence committed a)6 inches outside the area and b) 6 inches inside the area will result in a)a free kick from 19 yards with eleven defenders in the way or b)a free kick from 12 yards with a single defender and a 90% chance of scoring. I challenge anyone to attempt to explain this "logic" to me.

I think more officials is impractical (can't get the staff) and unworkable (who makes what decision where?) Pit Bill, but I do think that technology should be brought to the ref's assistance. After all, the ref will be damned on the basis of video evidence he has no access to, in the next day's papers, so it does seem silly not to use the technology now that it exists. It's simply a matter of working out how best it should be employed with due regard to interrupting the flow of the game as little as practicable.

Could someone help me down of this soapbox please ...

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001

Jonno, I think you have a point! Perhaps they should do away completely with the penalty kick and revise the free-kick rules. One possible scenario would be to markedly reduce the size of the current penalty area. This reduced area would then represent the area in which the keeper would be allowed to handle the ball. All infractions would result in a free kick in which the ball would be placed either 5 or 10 yards closer to the goal of the team TAKING the free kick (thus free kicks close to the offender's goal would always be a minimum of 10 yards away from the goal line. Alternately one could retain the current size of the 'penalty" area and for all offences in the area, award a free kick with the ball being placed at the mid-point of the penalty area line that runs parallel to the goal line. And, anyway, my stomach is still complaining about the sesame chicken that I fed it for lunch. phoenix :-)))))))

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001

That "stream of consciousness" last sentence there makes me think you might be Buff in disguise Phoenix old friend!

I won't offer a definitive solution to the problem myself. I think what is needed is a brainstorming session to come up with alternatives to the penalty. One could consider :-
- direct free kick in the penalty area
- one-on-one run on goal vs the keeper for certain offences.
- reduced number of defenders for free kicks. ie a number of the offending team must stand on the wrong side of the half-way line until the ball is played. The number not allowed to defend might be variable in line with the nature of the offense. (I find it ridiculous that you can foul a player who has rounded the keeper outside the area, has a clear shot at goal, is brought down and gets a free kick with the whole team defending)

Just 3 possible suggestions there. (Don't knock them - this is a brainstorming session) Whatever, I want the outcome to be that :-
1. Cheating defenders would not prosper
2. Reduce the incentive for attackers to dive.
3. A refereeing mistake (accepting they are certain to happen) would have a less catastrophic effect on the game than a penalty+sending- off.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001

Problem is that the game is very cynical these days - if you did away with the penalties rule then centre backs would just chop down the striker as soon as he got anywhere near the goal. I know there are cards to deal with that, but even then, especially towards the end of the game, you'd see far more fouls.

I agree that referees have a very tough job not made easier by the scrutiny they get these days, but it doesn't help when they get decisions wrong that aren't down to seeing the incident once at a hundred miles an hour. The Arsenal penalty was a classic example - there were 3 potentially correct interpretations: 1. It was not a penalty. If the ref had judged that to be the case then I would have disagreed with him but would have accepted that it was very fast, he was probably a fair distance behind the play & called it how he saw it etc. 2. Cambell made a genuine attempt to play the ball and unintentionally committed a foul. Penalty but no card. Nothing wrong with that. 3. Campbell intended to bring down Robert, or tried to play the ball in such a way that he was bound to committ a foul. Penalty & Red Card as there was absolutely no doubt that Campbell was last man.

There is no middle ground here, the ref just plain got it wrong and can't fall back on the usual "it was over in a split-second" and "I just call it how I see it" excuse.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001

The price to be paid for any lightening of an individual official's load would be extended consultation time, regardless of how the assistance is provided. I don't think that can be avoided.

The idea of extra officials appeals to me only from the point of view that the concensus, where required, would stand a better chance of being closer to what actually happened - some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, etc - sort of thing.

The extended consultation time would be when the ref calling the incident has to get some input from the other 5 officials. I can't see that the extra time involved here would necessarily be any longer than the time it took to sort out most of last night's shenanigans.

The advantage could be that the officials not directly involved wouldn't be obliged to volunteer an opinion in the majority of cases which could be as clear cut as they are now. The official calling it would pass the judgement. Only in the possibly contentious decisions would the caller possibly need to consult.

Another advantage I can see is that the number of off the ball incidents would go down in number, because there'd be less chance of a player getting away with it when there are five other lines od sight to be avoided.

Or things could stay just as they are now, where we assume that to err is human, but it all evens out over a season. Not on IMO. They should at least be trying, it wouldn't take that long to see that a particular system's good point don't outweigh it's bad points.

As it is now, it's great when the breaks go with you, but I know how I'd be feeling if the roles last night had been reversed and the incidents swapped and the arse had stopped us going top.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001

if you did away with the penalties rule then centre backs would just chop down the striker as soon as he got anywhere near the goal

Not true. Especially if free kicks were made more dangerous by the restriction on numbers of defenders (for example) as suggested above.

My point is that the current Laws are ludicrously unjust as demonstrated in the example I gave. And the award of a pen for any foul in the 18 yard box is plain silly. A striker can be fouled as he is about to tap the ball into an empty net from 2 yards or he can be fouled with his back to goal and 11 defenders blocking his shot. If it's in that blessed area - same award - pen - 90% scoring chance. It's plain stupid.

I have made this sort of point time and again and I don't think it's ever been challenged. That's because it's right! The argument will ensue over precisely what to replace the pen with, and there I'm interested in all suggestions.

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2001

Penalties, and strategies for attacking and defending the penalty box are a fundamental part of the game. They're not necessarily just there to mete out just punishment in instances where a goal has been prevented. It's like the offside trap - if you change it you run the risk of fundamentally altering the way the game is played. It might work out for the better but it might work out vastly for the worse. Personally I think that the game is pretty good a it is. Wouldn't be averse to minor tinkering (2 refs for instance to allow them to keep up with play a bit better) but we should be very wary of making significant changes. For example, it is arguably a bad thing that a player who is tripped in the box with his back to goal who isn't in a goalscoring position gets a penalty. But in the wider context the existence of that longstanding rule directly affects the way the game is played - defenders are far less likely to lunge in when the ball is in the box, attackers have more room to turn than they might otherwise have. Debatable whether these are good things, but they're clearly important things and the game would certainly change in some way - not necessarily for the better - if we changed the penalty rule.

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001

I think the Corinthians considered that no gentleman would deliberately foul their opponent, (which I think was the earliest application of a penalty kick i.e. an intentional foul in the area), thus they would not kick for goal.

And that is why the club is now fighting for a Champions League place...or not ;-)

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2001